Image copyright Craigslist Image caption The personals section of Craigslist was closed in the US after Fosta became law

Digital rights campaigners are starting a legal challenge to a US law that seeks to fight online sex trafficking.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says the "poorly written" law can hinder attempts to help victims and prosecute traffickers.

The Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (Fosta) also trespasses on free speech laws, claims the lawsuit.

The EFF wants the law declared unconstitutional to stop it being enforced.

Repeat warning

In a blog announcing its legal action, the EFF said the law needed to be halted because, in its current form, it was harming many people working on behalf of sex workers and victims.

In particular, said the EFF, the vague language in Fosta puts those who call for decriminalisation of sex work, or who try to establish greater recognition for prostitutes and others in the trade, at the risk of prosecution.

In addition, it said, the law undermines established protections enjoyed by websites that host content posted by their users.

Fosta "vastly magnifies" the risk these net firms bear if they choose to run ads on forums dedicated to these sexual professions, it said.

Already net firms including Craigslist, Reddit and others have shut down forums and chat rooms dedicated to the buying and selling of sex for fear of prosecution.

The law has also limited the work of organisations trying to help people who offer sexual services, said the EFF. One such was VerifyHim, which logged descriptions of abusive clients to help workers avoid them.

The EFF's legal challenge is also being aided by the Internet Archive, Human Rights Watch and Woodhull Freedom Foundation. In addition, two individuals are backing it - one a spokesperson for sex workers and another a masseur who now finds it hard to advertise his non-sexual service.

The US Congress was repeatedly warned that Fosta would not achieve its aims and was likely to foster widespread censorship, said the EFF. </s> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. law enforcement agencies have seized the sex marketplace website Backpage.com as part of an enforcement action by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to a posting on the Backpage website on Friday.

An image of the current home page of the website backpage.com shows logos of U.S. law enforcement agencies after they seized the sex marketplace site April 6, 2018. backpage.com via REUTERS

Groups and political leaders working to end forced prostitution and child exploitation celebrated the shutdown of Backpage, a massive ad marketplace that is primarily used to sell sex. But some internet and free speech advocates warned the action could lead to harsh federal limits on expression and the press.

The website posting said U.S. attorneys in Arizona and California, as well as the Justice Department’s section on child exploitation and obscenity and the California and Texas attorneys general had helped shut down the website.

The Justice Department said late on Friday that a court in Arizona ruled the case remains sealed, which puts any legal information under wraps. In the posting about the seizure, the department had originally said more information would be made public on Friday evening.

A Phoenix FBI official said that there was “law enforcement activity” at the Sedona, Arizona home of Michael Lacey, one of the founders of Backpage, but referred further inquiries to the Justice Department.

Reuters was unable to reach representatives of Backpage for comment.

“Today, Backpage was shutdown. It’s a huge step. Now no child will be sold for sex through this website,” tweeted Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

Heitkamp helped draft legislation passed by the Senate last month that makes it easier for state prosecutors and sex-trafficking victims to sue social media networks, advertisers and others that fail to keep sex trafficking and exploitative materials off their platforms..

President Donald Trump will sign the bill into law next week, said Heitkamp. The legislation, featured prominently in the popular Netflix documentary “I am Jane Doe,” amends the Communications Decency Act, which has shielded website operators from state criminal charges or civil liability if they facilitate sex ads or prostitution.

“Shutting down the largest online U.S. marketplace for sex trafficking will dramatically reduce the profitability of forcing people into the commercial sex trade, at least in the short term,” said Bradley Myles, chief executive of Polaris, an international anti-slavery group that runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline.

There would be “a dramatic shift in the marketplace starting tonight,” he added.

Backpage and advocacy groups say the ads are free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Backpage has affiliates across the country and around the world, and by 2014 brought in annual revenue of $135 million, the New York Times has reported.

The Supreme Court in January 2017 refused to consider reviving a lawsuit against Backpage that was filed by three young women, who accused it of facilitating their forced prostitution.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has told Congress that nearly three quarters of the cases submitted to the center relate to ads posted on the site. The state of California has said that 90 percent of the site’s income were attributable to “adult ads.”

In 2016, Texas and California authorities raided the company’s Dallas headquarters and arrested chief executive Carl Ferrer and other former company executives on pimping-related charges. The judge in the case ruled the website was protected by the First Amendment, and it was not liable for the speech of third parties. </s> CARSON CITY — Nevada has joined three other states to file a lawsuit to prevent the federal government from transferring internet oversight from U.S. control to an international organization.

Attorney General Adam Laxalt said the transfer to the unregulated, nongovernmental body could jeopardize free speech and invite censorship.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday in Texas by Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and Arizona.

Since its founding, the U.S. Commerce Department has overseen the operations of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. However, the federal government plans to allow ICANN to become fully independent once its contract expires Friday.

ICANN, the nonprofit organization running the database, will then become autonomous and be accountable to international stakeholders.

The lawsuit says the change would allow for private parties to control the internet and could seriously undermine free speech on the internet domain. The lawsuit argues that the decision violates the First Amendment, the Property Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The parties are asking for an injunction to stop the transfer.

“By relinquishing its oversight of the internet to a nongovernmental and unregulated international organization, the Commerce Department is seriously jeopardizing free speech and inviting censorship on the internet where there should be a free exchange of ideas,” Laxalt said. “In asking for an injunction, if successful, we hope to halt this transfer in order to give policy makers time to evaluate the possible consequences of this decision.”

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-461-3820. Follow @seanw801 on Twitter. </s> (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a Wikipedia lawsuit that challenges a U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) program of mass online surveillance, and claims that the government unconstitutionally invades people’s privacy rights.

A man is silhouetted near logos of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and Wikipedia in this photo illustration taken in Sarajevo March 11, 2015. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo

By a 3-0 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia online encyclopedia, had a legal right to challenge the government’s Upstream surveillance program.

The decision could make it easier for people to learn whether authorities have spied on them through Upstream, which involves bulk searches of international communications within the internet’s backbone of cables, switches and routers.

Upstream’s existence was revealed in leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.

Lawyers for the Wikipedia publisher and eight other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, with more than 1 trillion international communications annually, argued that the surveillance violated their rights to privacy, free expression and association.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had authorized Upstream’s review of communications between Americans and foreign “targets.”

In October 2015, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III in Baltimore dismissed the lawsuit, finding a lack of evidence that the NSA, headquartered in Maryland, was conducting surveillance “at full throttle.”

Writing for the appeals court panel, however, Circuit Judge Albert Diaz found “nothing speculative” about the Wikimedia Foundation’s claims.

Diaz said the NSA interception and copying of communications showed “an invasion of a legally protected interest - the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The foundation could also pursue its First Amendment claim because it had “self-censored” some communications in response to the Upstream surveillance, Diaz said.

By a 2-1 vote, the same panel also ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the NSA’s alleged “dragnet” to intercept “substantially all” text-based communications to and from the United States while conducting Upstream surveillance.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Abueg declined to comment.

Patrick Toomey, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling means Upstream “will finally face badly needed scrutiny” in the courts.

“This is an important victory for the rule of law,” he said in a statement. “Our government shouldn’t be searching the private communications of innocent people in bulk.”

Some Democratic and Republican lawmakers are working on legislation to curtail parts of Upstream. A section of FISA that authorizes the program expires at year end.

The case is Wikimedia Foundation et al v National Security Agency et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-2560. </s> A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived part of a lawsuit in which the publisher of Wikipedia and other groups said mass online surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency violated the U.S. Constitution.

By a 3-0 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the Wikimedia Foundation could pursue claims challenging the so-called Upstream surveillance, involving the bulk searching of Internet communications.

The appeals court said a lower court judge erred in dismissing that claim because the main allegations were "not speculative," giving the group standing to sue for violations of the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourth Amendments.

"The allegation that the NSA is intercepting and copying communications suffices to show an invasion of a legally protected interest," Circuit Judge Albert Diaz wrote. "Indeed, there's nothing speculative about it."

Tuesday's decision also upheld the dismissal of related claims by eight other groups, including Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, saying they could not plausibly show the NSA was intercepting their communications through what it called a "dragnet."

Circuit Judge Andre Davis dissented from that part of the decision, saying he would have found the other plaintiffs had standing.

A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment. </s> A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court ruled the Wikimedia Foundation has standing to sue the National Security Agency over its "upstream" surveillance practice, reversing a lower-court decision tossing the group's case.

An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, called the decision an "important victory for the rule of law."

"The NSA has secretly spied on Americans' internet communications for years, but now this surveillance will finally face badly needed scrutiny in our public courts," Patrick Toomey said in a statement. "We look forward to arguing this case on the merits," he said.

This ACLU argues that the "upstream" surveillance of the internet's "backbone" of digital networks violates constitutional protections of free speech and privacy.

The NSA recently announced it will no longer permit intelligence officials to collect emails, texts and other communications between two people who mention a target by name, but are not themselves targets of surveillance. The agency said it will limit such collection to internet communications sent directly to or from a foreign target.

But Toomey said he doesn't believe the agency's decision to scale back its surveillance will have an impact on the case.

While the NSA has suspended a controversial piece of its "upstream" surveillance, it still continues, Toomey said. Furthermore, the NSA hasn't said it won't go back to its broader collection practice in the future, he said.

"That makes it very important that we continue to press ahead with this challenge," Toomey said.

The 4th Circuit's decision only revives Wikimedia's claim; the court said other groups that brought the initial lawsuit in 2015—including Amnesty International USA and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers—don't have legal standing.

The 4th Circuit said Wikimedia's allegations are enough to "make the plausible conclusion" that NSA has intercepted and reviewed some of its communications. Wikimedia can sue under the First Amendment because it has "self-censored its speech and sometimes forgone electronic communications" because of the NSA's surveillance, the court said.

"Indeed, there's nothing speculative about it—the interception of Wikimedia's communications is an actual injury that has already occurred," Judge Albert Diaz wrote.

The government can ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case. </s> Wikipedia is suing the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) for their illegal mass surveillance of the general public, claiming the Obama administration unconstitutionally invaded people’s privacy rights.

A federal appeals court on Thursday revived the lawsuit, agreeing by a 3-0 vote that the Wikimedia Foundation could challenge the government’s “Upstream” surveillance program.

Yahoo News reports: The decision could make it easier for people to learn whether authorities have spied on them through Upstream, which involves bulk searches of international communications within the internet’s “backbone” of cables, switches and routers.

Upstream’s existence was revealed in leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.

Lawyers for the Wikipedia publisher and eight other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, with more than 1 trillion international communications annually, argued the surveillance violated their rights to privacy, free expression and association.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has authorized Upstream and its review of communications between Americans and foreign “targets.”

In October 2015, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III in Baltimore dismissed the lawsuit, finding a lack of evidence that the NSA, headquartered in Maryland, was conducting surveillance “at full throttle.”

Writing for the appeals court panel, however, Circuit Judge Albert Diaz found “nothing speculative” about the Wikimedia Foundation’s claims.

Diaz said the NSA interception and copying of communications showed “an invasion of a legally protected interest – the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The Wikipedia publisher can also pursue its First Amendment claim because it had “self-censored” some communications in response to the Upstream surveillance, Diaz said.

By a 2-1 vote, the panel also ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the NSA’s alleged “dragnet” to intercept “substantially all” text-based communications to and from the United States while conducting Upstream surveillance.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Patrick Toomey, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling means Upstream “will finally face badly needed scrutiny” in the courts.

“This is an important victory for the rule of law,” he said in a statement. “Our government shouldn’t be searching the private communications of innocent people in bulk.”

The case is Wikimedia Foundation et al v National Security Agency et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-2560. </s> The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, in a unanimous 3-0 vote, will allow the Wikipedia online encyclopedia parent organization, Wikimedia Foundation, to proceed with a legal challenge to the NSA's "Upstream" global surveillance arm.

NSA's Upstream, whose existence was made public following leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, is a US global spy program that accesses the cables, switches and routers comprising the principal data routes of the internet to conduct universal international communications surveillance.

At least nine organizations, including Wikimedia Foundation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch previously argued that, as their representatives source or receive over one trillion international communications every year, Upstream presented a violation of the right to privacy, free expression and association.

In 2013 a US District Judge in Baltimore had dismissed the lawsuit, citing a lack of evidence that the NSA conducted global surveillance "at full throttle."

But in the new appeal to allow the lawsuit to proceed, Circuit Judge Albert Diaz suggested that there was "nothing speculative" about the claims made by Wikimedia Foundation and the other plaintiffs.

Diaz, Reuters reported, stated that the NSA interception and copying of international internet communications revealed "an invasion of a legally protected interest — the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."

Rights organizations across the US hailed the move.

"This is a wonderful example of how transparency creates a more just society," said Garland Nixon, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) board member and host of Radio Sputnik's "Fault Lines."

"The Snowden leaks created the dynamic in which these public information and social justice organizations, who were made aware of otherwise unknowable government programs, are able to petition the judicial system and fight for the privacy protections that they have a right to expect."

ACLU lawyer Patrick Toomey, representing the plaintiffs in the case, observed that Upstream "will finally face badly needed scrutiny."

"This is an important victory for the rule of law," he said in a statement cited by Reuters. "Our government shouldn't be searching the private communications of innocent people in bulk."

The US Justice Department has not responded to requests for comment on the go-ahead vote. </s> A legal challenge to a controversial NSA program called is getting a second chance. A US appeals court reversed a lower court decision and ruled today that the , the non-profit that runs Wikipedia, has legal standing to object to Upstream in court.

The 's Upstream program is authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is up for reauthorization by Congress this year. The NSA says Section 702 and the Upstream collection it allows are crucial for intercepting the communications of foreign terrorists. But critics of the program-Wikimedia among them-say that Upstream collection gathers virtually all international internet traffic and combs through it, violating the rights of American citizens who are caught up in the surveillance dragnet.

But challenging Upstream in court has proved difficult because companies and individuals have to prove that they've been directly surveilled in order to establish standing. Due to the secretive nature of NSA surveillance, it's tough for anyone to prove they were a target-so these cases are often dismissed. To wit: A district court previously dismissed the lawsuit brought by Wikimedia and eight other organizations in October 2015, saying its claims of surveillance were too speculative.

But the Wikimedia Foundation's global reach-it says it engages in one trillion international communications per year-convinced the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the organization's data has likely been collected by the NSA. The court ruled today that Wikimedia could challenge the surveillance based on its First and Fourth Amendment rights. (Wikimedia argued that upstream collection is an unreasonable search and has a chilling affect on its speech.)

"Wikimedia has plausibly alleged that its communications travel all of the roads that a communication can take, and that the NSA seizes all of the communications along at least one of those roads," the court ruled. "And, because Wikimedia has self-censored its speech and sometimes forgone electronic communications in response to Upstream surveillance, it also has standing to sue for a violation of the First Amendment."

Now that Wikimedia has cleared this hurdle, the case will be an interesting test of the legality of dragnet surveillance, and it may put pressure on Congress as it considers Section 702 reform.

"This is an important victory for the rule of law. The NSA has secretly spied on Americans' internet communications for years, but now this surveillance will finally face badly needed scrutiny in our public courts," attorney Patrick Toomey, who represents Wikimedia, said in a statement emailed to Gizmodo. "This mass surveillance threatens the foundations of a free internet."

As Congress weighs wether or not to reauthorize Section 702 this year, the NSA is tweaking its surveillance programs to make them more palatable. The agency recently announced that it is ending "about" collection , which gathers digital communications that reference a surveillance target. The NSA said it was ending the collection due to privacy concerns and admitted that Americans' data had not been handled correctly. However, the Upstream collection at issue in Wikimedia's case continues.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling. We've reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment, and we'll update if we hear back.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights organization, files a legal challenge to the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), claiming it trespasses on free speech laws and hinders attempts to help victims and prosecute traffickers.