Traditional Privacy Protect it, shouldnt be that difficult of an intuition that when people disclose intimate information to one party, they often dont expect it is going to be given to another party. Whether that is disclosing it to the cloud, whatever that, versus your partner, it seems the more obvious way to look at this would be dont we have some senseof contextual integrity for privacy and qut when you go to your doctor and tell him about your symptoms can expect your doctor will not tell anybody else but your symptoms are sureor instance the pictures of your medical exams. We have plenty of situations where we think about it not related to the charged issue of womens bodies and all the ways we expect our information should be kept confidential within a certain relationship come even if we have voluntarily given it to one party or other parties. When we consider it that way, is helpful to think about what we do in other contexts. Do we protect peoples credit card information . We protect home offices . To protect trade secrets . Is always in which we might be disclosing information all the criminal penalties and parties, people step outside of those contacts and its useful to think about why we should or should not apply remedies here because it certainly is true we can come up with ways for victims to talk about copyright remedies, for them to talk about infliction of Emotional Distress. More people see what these behaviors is difficult to talk after the fact about any type of remedy. Copyright is going to maybe work for Jennifer Lawrence. Its not going to work for the message or to victims who have no recourse. It takes some time to takedown process. Many private citizens are not going to have that cloud. Copyright is not an effective solution for the majority of victims are waiting to think about and situations like relationships gone sour but actual ongoing domestic relationships used to track people and his relationship to keep them from reporting physical abuse of the police are asked in a relationship. Racing would have plenty of results being reported on broadcast. This is a broad category of material that is getting out there in the idea theres any kind of lawsuit for copyright remedy that is responsive to that harm is a bit naive or at least somewhat abstract given what actual the hands experiences have been. I also think it is important again as we try to think about advocacy of legal remedies to think completely about First Amendment values and the goals of section 230 and then not thinking consider how much of an effect, i would say disciplinary effect these types of harms are having on women speh. How many women are afraid ive ever been intimate with anyone or having their web camera hacked or having a hidden camera somewhere recording them having sex or aybe taking pictures of their skirt. How many women are free to commit themselves truly to their careers or i might discourse because they are afraid this is what is going to happen to them. This is the punishment that would be given to them and the last best response will be to clean up the mess afterwards, canada must have tons of money and tons of time, which many will not have because they been fired from their jobs are kicked out of schools. That is really a fan we have to take seriously about how much this is effect and of course not a living and because theres male victims, too, but the real epidemic is using the threat of this behavior, using the actual used as a way to shut women up and drive them offline and as a freespeech matter, as a section 230 matter in fostering open discourse and quality, we shall hear about that. If i may disrupt the order of date, if i go down to david, if you could go in depth warrant some of her opening statement, what are some of the ways the law as it stands has tried to grapple with issues and what are the ways people have looked at adapting laws crafted long before the internet was what it was today to some of these problems a little more new unique to the internet . Yacht, and i think the hacking is the hacking side of the problem. The abuse that above mentioned is one that may well have been in this particular instance of violation and accessing a protected computer without authorization gives rise to those civil and crimina liability under the federal code and it could be applicable. Im obviously not giving obviously not given any Legal Adviser taken a position on whether or not it is, but that assert that one avenue. There are also on the port side, there are both several people have mentioned a number of state law tort ran many were some of this behavior, intentional affliction being one can invasion of privacy which you recognize in most states now for outrageous conduct but this fact dvd. I think its nother. I guess theres a word in response to what mary ann said. I completely agree that to think of copyright as a solution to this problem is naive and not very sensible. But let me just say that the copyright act is one place in the federal code were aggrieved parties can quickly arrange without a lawsuit, quickly arrange to have material taken down from the internet. To takedown procedure is a very powerful thing. So if you have a copy and im not saying for all the reasons mary anne mansion, discovers a small subset, but its not a trivial subset of the problem where people can in fact, at least there is a remedy that is useful in terms of removing material for one reason or another they have a claim on and most websites operate automatically and the message and they have to more or less give you some procedure to follow what they want to claim the copyright community. They must do so. You click, you say and just generally speaking millions of times a day. This operates boost the material from not from the side. One very quick comment i want to make about the notion again as mary anne was saying, does allow have to wait until something bad happens before providing a remedy . In this context the answer may well be yes most of the time. Because this is a lot of what we are talking about falls into the category of protected speech or speech. Theres a serious problem with a prior restraint doctrine. You cant put it up in the first place. That would avoid much of the harm. But tha raises even more serious First Amendment problems than sort of ex post regulation of days, which raises its own problems. So i think that has to be taken has to be thought about more carefully. Rob, you mentioned the Computer Fraud and abuse act. I am sort of reminded several years ago when there are pale and email address was also hacked. What we understand, a similar fashion. A pretty obvious password and some in sa. With her as a weapon testing, with a Password Recovery questions, which reviews Password Recovery questions then you have a Wikipedia Page about you, dont have the answers beyond that page. Hopefully we will all be in a position to make that mistake at some point. The point. To point b. With a lot of information on the internet and dont think about the levels of security. What are the levels of security for information on the internet and how does the law protect those right now . So, a lot of peoples complaint is that is so broad. If you read the text of it, basically says the computer might be on the internet and use it in a way that wasnt specifically authorized by the people who own or control, you can be charged under this, which leads to a can criminalize basic research that needs to be done to solve the problems we are talking about right now. If the webpage is copying of data because you enter the right input, that can be a cfa a crime, even now you have to prove to the owner of the page you have a problem here, fix it. In this case the problem is not they dont protect us, they also have a bunch of other stuff that, you know, criminalizes activity that the people in white cats need to do to stop the people wearing black hats. You know come assert as well because in so many cases it can be hard for prosecutors to figure out which ones to bring. How my tax dollars to we rais. You can say he wa being not very nice with the i. T. System. This fella put a laptop in the closet to download Academic Research tunic of publicly available tax funded research. It was a cfaa prosecution, was threatened with 10 years in jail and committed suicide. Moving into a bundle bit more of now do we have some sense of the lay of the land, what can be done to change the laws and address some of these issues. Im, you mentioned a little bit when laws are being crafted, its very important to understand what you are in unintentionally and at some point mary anne come you can weigh in on this as well. Not so much of the federal level, but the state level to write laws that criminalize. If you could give a rundown of whats been tried and where the pitfalls have come. Scheuer. So i know that professor franks and daniel citroen come as a professor at university of Maryland School of law has been working hard to feature it away to craft model legislation that would allow going after only be identified criminal activities that they want to target with the sort of law and not prevent a whole host of other speech. They are kind of key categories you have to think in this law. What kind of content is covered . The content we are talking about is generally content for tactic under the First Amendment when it is created. A person taking a photo of themselves or have a partner of tears, the nude image is constitutionally protected speech and theres no crime involved in the image at the outset. So trying to define a set of how, is it sexual explicit imagery come as a imagery that reveals different or Sexual Activity and what is the nature of t content and its a big difficult to define because there is afair rain of the sort of could all think of, you know, of ourselves getting exposed to others that we would see as a harassing sort aout her. So trying to define the category of content that would be protected so it is not so broad to include things like a photo of a woman breastfeeding or some other kind of nude that you would capture in Public Places and really try and focus images that are branded as sphere of intimate exchange that the professor franks is talking about. It is also who is potentially liable under these bills is the big question. It seems clear you want to be looking at the person who uploads the photo out of the consent they have or havent received from the person depicted in the photo. Theres also a question of how the laws are drafted. Are they so broad as to been talking about a little bit, what the photo is uploaded . Is a sweeping and a person who looks at the photo that may or may not know the photo was uploaded without consent. So just to give a couple of examples of laws, theres a virginia stattate se that was passed and went into effect this summer in the first prosecution under the law is underway. It is a relatively narrow blog that includes requirements that there is an intent to coerce, harass or intimidate a person by displaying their imminent and tries to define exactly what the content of the image with e. And so, it is an attempt to draft a fairly narrow blog. I dont know if it has been challenged yet under the First Amendment by any groups. On the other hand, the state of arizona also passed a law then again is a nude photo blog. It is trying to restrict the photos shared without their consent. But it would make the display at a publication or fail a nude issues about the consent of the person depicted a felony. That was it to the law. There are no exceptions for newsworthiness. Theres no even real acknowledgment that if somebody poses for a photo for an art exhibit and is clearly given their consent to the person to be included in the exhibit, if someone else than a hose the exhibit online, they havent gotten the consent directly from the model to pick it, it is implied as part of the process has been a model in an art exhibit but under the letter of the law as it currently is in arizona, the website could be in violation of the law. So its done with the best intentions of wanting to get the consent of people depicted in photos before those photos are shared, but not done with a view to just how much sharing of images have been in a way that doesnt violate the initial consent, but also doesnt derive direct explicit consent. This is getting into the weeds of the law, but these are the things we have to think through if were looking at is it possible to craft something that really is very narrowly tailored and anticipates all of these unintended consequences. Mary anne if you could pick up on not to talk about the efforts to change laws at the state level and state level in state level and if any of that could be translated on the fedal level. Yes, definitely too and that his point, this is a difficult task because they are drafting and clear drafting is difficult and im sure everyone knows that. He might end up with some name that is not that great. So that is certainly true and the organization for which i serve as the Vice President , is actually published a guide for legislators trying to make clear what elements we think are constitutionally sound and protected for victims in the pitfalls we think the legislators should avoid and weve been making for quite some time a very narrow definition of what is considered explicit bit serial. We need to be clear about who is responsible for this criminal conduct. When a certain exceptions including the public interest, which is a broad exception, but can include lawenforcement or newsworthiness. Theres a couple things they might diverge. As much as i agree arizonas law has problems and that has made the news recently because they are now suing it. We can look at what the problems are. That was a mistake and when they will fix. As for the rest of it, it is not at all clear there would be as many problems as the aclu and others are trying to make it out to be. The exceptions include images disclosed in public or commercial settings. Anything we talk about is a model issue, photography exhibit will never be a problem and whether you have to get consent from every person every time is also not true in arizona law is the law says when you knew or should have know the image in question was disclosed without consent. Its a pretty good standard to consider, especially we think about revenge porn size. If you are on a revenge porn and associate no idea she is looking at your picture and you are going to share or to suppose that, you have a pretty good idea this is a nonconsent issue. As to the question of who should be responsible as many of you know because of section 230, which allows for immunity of online intermediaries, as far as criminal law goes, to 30 will trump and of these laws actually pose any threat to the immunity. People might be confused, but it cant actually preempt to 30. That is obviously not true theres a federal criminal law that gets passed because as you know section 230 is not absolute. It does not apply to copyright. It doesnt apply to electronic rbc communications, but also doesnt apply to federal criminal law, which is why google, facebook, twitter all have to care about child porn lost because it doesnt write them a blank check for that we can all agree that is a good team. What i want to emphasize his fault is true we have to care about unintended consequences sleeping too much speech, we also have to be worried about that. That is true of every single law. Theres no such thing as a law that doesnt sweep and dissenting were not going to lay sleeping in. The question always has been to not than the contacts but also criminal law generally unbalanced on republishing more good with this plot than bad interest to suggest or have a response, if theres any time you suggest to someone they may not be able to disclose what they want to disclose, that means a disaster for us as a democracy with the internet hasnt proven to be true in many contacts in many contexts and when we can take that weve discussed already is the nca noticed taedown has been going on for some time. Many people were convinced when it was passed in which at the internet down. It looks like the internet is doing okay in light of the fact it is a powerful tool to get people to stop saying there aint been expressing themselves. Same thing true for child porn lost and gambling laws and frankly the same thing is true about trade secrets, identity pass, voyeurism. All kinds of situations in which we have for some time accepted the fact that disclosures of lawful information can be criminalized. If we think about the Identity Theft contacts, none of us want to be criinalized for having a credit card number and we are not. If someone takes the information and uses that an unauthorized way, we say thats criminal. This is not novel. The only thing here that is not novel is we do what they conduct primarily directed at women and we try to treat at the same as we would treat other types of Sensitive Information and perhaps we are resistant to giving the same rights. Maybe that shouldnt be the way we approach this. We really need to think about what we count as privacy, what we consider the social value of saying you cannot actually disclose certain information unless you want to live in a world where theres no Identity Theft, no trade secrets progression, no confidentiality protection at all. In other words, we words, we live in a world of which we restrict speech all the time. The question is one question is when a support that on balance balance to restrict the speech. Some people say that is not what the First Amendment does, but effectively it is because theyre plenty of situations when the Supreme Court has said on balance we have to consider harms and consequences, but many times people dont bring a First Amendment questions. How many people think spam is a First Amendment issue . How many of you think im other than david, but its kind of a rare thing. Disclosing Social Security numbers as a freespeech issue. The question seeking the criminal law, copyright, our law generally, do we think what is going to happen, the people we protect and are able to support a more important than the few things that ight have been otherwise. I dont want to trivialize or underestimat the fact we need to think as much as we can about unintended consequenc