Privacy and after that president obama announces his nominee for attorney general and then a discussion on the election impact on state and local government. Washingtonxt journal patent craig hill looks at the attitudes that shaped the election results. Hows thurber examines divided government can work and will mark the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall with Georgetown Professor and a look at the impact of a unified germany. As always you can join the call and conversation on facebook and twitter. Cspan veterans day coverage begins Tuesday Morning during Washington Times with an interview with verna jones and then at 10 00 the annual uso gala. And we are live at 11 00 from Arlington National cemetery and the tomb of the unknown. Later, selections from this year posner middle of honor ceremonies. Actress Jennifer Lawrence recently stated that the exposure of a personal nude photo should be considered a sex crime. The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee examined the legal ramifications of hacking private photos and socalled revenge born. This is one hour 10 minutes. Hello i am the executive director of the International International internet caucus advisory committee. Programic is on your which you have in front of you and twitter information is on there as well as is the information of the speakers and their twitter accounts. Event withng this the congressional internet and onadvisory committee the house side the cochairs are congressman bob goodlad and the senators are john thune and patrick leahy. Forre in their debt supporting this program and they do not agree on every issue but we are thrilled that they agree that the internet should have a form where we can debate these issues. I want to thank them and our moderators today. She is a Cyber Security reporter and she has covered this over the past couple years, and she is situated to moderate our panel today. Her twitter account information is on the program as well. Take it away. Thank you, and thank you to the net caucus for having me here today. A very interesting topic which we will be diving into headfirst. To introduce our panel, from here down on, we have marianne franks. To her left is the director of the Free Expression project. Then a columnist at yahoo tech. And david post. All these fine people have a lot of expertise in this topic from a lot of different angles, which is where i wanted to start off today. One of the most interesting things about this hack of the celeb photos is it raised a different issues for a lot of different people. As a Cyber Security reporter, i covered in terms of the Password Security on the cloud and what the technical aspects of that hack might have been, but it raises a number of conversations from misogyny on the internet to what actually is the nature of the crime that occurred, whether you look at it from the perceptive of a sex crime, a hacking crime, a First Amendment issue here, and we will touch on all those different takeaways today. How i would like to begin is if the panelists could go down and say what for them was the one or two big takeaways from this hack and what is the most important thing to look at about this. So i think a good place to start as any is with Jennifer Lawrence calling what happened to her is a sex crime. A lot of people were taken aback by that characterization because as a matter of law that is true. What it highlights is an invitation to what we think what a crime is, what we think a sex crime in particular is, and thinking about ways we can recognize it as being such. I think it is interesting to hear from such a highprofile victim of this, that her own sense of one of was this violation of sexual autonomy, humiliation, and exposure that she would call this a sex crime. What i think would be the perspective that i would take on this is to consider why we criminalize certain types of behavior when we start drawing the line between bad behavior and behavior that we think needs a response from criminal law. And i would invite us to think about why we think the criminal law is important. Not a narrow focus, but a social expression, a condemnation of certain types of harms that are so serious that one of the only ways we can express it as a community is to say this should be against the law, and think about the particular nature of what happened to lawrence and other victims in terms of the daily suffering and humiliation they have to experience, that they can never get back, there is no way to undo what has been done, that the harm in these cases really is irreversible and ongoing. What i hope we can do to frame the conversation by looking to a perspective of the victim is think about why we might care about the fact that such sexual humiliation has become an industry and what is our response validity as society, and if people are concerned about having a free and equal an open internet, what we should be doing in response to that. Thank you, and i thought it is interesting how professor franks was talking about expressions about this behavior, because that me was one of the major differences i saw in the response around this most recent exposure of celebrity photos appear to show how this issue and how the nonconsensual disclosure of these images has been treated over the years. Five years ago or several years ago, when many of us seated at this table first started talking about this issue, it was difficult to get people engaged on the question. There was not a public conversation about how is this being used as a way to try to go after women, to harass them, to silence them, and to see that shift in the public conversation about there is much more willingness for major Media Outlets and for people engaging on social media to be talking about the other side of the story, to talk about, no, people should not be going and following these links. The information might be out there on the internet, that we do not have to see it and to treat what has happened to the people whose photos have been exposed as a real harm that has happened to them. I think it is a good thing that we are having much more of that conversation happen in public and society to appreciate the real harm that is happening to women when they are targeted and this way. Of course, the concern that i see coming from a First Amendment and open internet background is wanting to see if there are proposals on how to take a stronger response to this, insuring that whatever these proposals are not so broadly crafted that they end up pulling in a lot of protected expression as well. There is a way it is very difficult to craft a law that goes after, that makes a crime of disclosing information in a way that only gets after a bad or a malicious disclosure of information and does not also sweep in a lot of real and vital important speech. I hope one of things we can focus today is looking on what are the existing laws that identify the kinds of harms that happen here, whether it is a person trying to inflict distress on another person, a person launching a campaign of harassment against someone, whether the federal Computer Fraud and abuse act can cover he hacking aspect of this. Spirit there are ways we have addressed the harms that can come from this kind of behavior in existing law that do not entail focusing specifically on the speech aspect of it. My first reaction was there was this it is a bunch of celebrities in trouble response, which is unhelpful and stupid because im sure no one in this room has pictures they do not want on the entire internet, with some of those people on facebook, and that is i got better way to look at it, because just calling celebgate was one of the stupider gate words put around. If you want to keep your information safe, are there tools available, do they help, and in apples case, they had a weak implementation of twostep verification. If you had done it, they did not protect icloud backups. I am not clear on what is getting backed up and how to control it. It is an opaque system. You have this case where these people did not think they were putting their pictures on the internet, and it is not only clear in a lot of cloud services, where did your data go . There is a story in the Washington Post earlier this week where a photographer from Johns Hopkins he thought this as only on his computer. We have laws against unauthorized access. It does an effective sort of thing. We also need to not everyone is going to go through the factor of twostep verification, but it should be there, it should work him and you should know what is protecting and what it is not. I guess i have less to say about the specifics of the lawrence incident. One of the other things that is on this purview of this panel is a related question, a broader question about, as, i guess, professor franks, called it the epidemic of sexual sites on the internet, photo sites, those kinds of things, which is a serious social issues. My thoughts turn with emma to the First Amendment, first of all, which, as she said, rafting, even if we think this is harmful, crafting prohibition that would survive First Amendment scrutiny with respect to much of this material, it would be quite difficult, probably not impossible, but difficult and would require some care to make sure it does not sweep in a good deal of protected material. I got involved in this i had a student who is working on actually a project on copyright, possible copyright remedies around these revenge porn sites, can you take down photographs based on copyright claims, and i spent half an hour, 45 minutes poking around at those sites about a year or so ago. Theres a good deal of material on there that is clearly protected speech. Theres some material that may not be. Drawing that line would be challenging to my thinking. That is one thought i had. And the discussion about these issues, and there has been a good deal of discussion in the Legal Academy at least, about what to do about this, what kinds of remedies we can provide. Conversation and debate has moved often quickly to the question of website operator iability for hosting these photographs. There are existing we can get into more the rest of this session there are existing remedies that may provide relief to people who have been harmed against the individual uploaders of the private photographs that are being posted. But section 230 of the Communications Act has been construed to protect the website operator from being drawn into that tort liability, because it immunizes the operator against a broad range of tort liability, including this. So much of this discussion has come around to people arguing about whether 230 should be repealed completely or modified to allow actions against website operators. It is a very important law problem because many issues have this feature where the intermediaries, the website operators typically are helping to spread this harmful information and yet federal law immunizes them against liability. I hope we can get into those 230 issues. Great. As we can all see, there is quite a bit at play here. Perhaps we can start with and it is difficult in this case because we are sort of going from a very specific instance. This was Jennifer Lawrence had private photos gotten into and her photos got on the nternet. Those are a lot of different from revenge porn situation, and after that something went south, where the photo was initially given with consent. That is very different than someone hacking into a private computer that you may not have stored something on the web. It is different if someone gets the password because you used your dogs name is a password versus a sophisticated phishing malware so there are a lot of Different Cases that raise these ssues. Generally speaking, what are the remedies who people feel that there are private images and private data in the Digital World has been exposed to the internet, what can they do now under the law to get relief, although they may never be able o get it back . I think it is important to focus on the fact that Jennifer Lawrence situation, and the other celebrities come are different from these other types of context. It is important to not make too much difference out of these instances. If we look at it from a more privacy perspective, it should not be a difficult intuition when people disclose internet information one party they also do not expect it will given to another party. Either that will this is disclosing that to your partner, or the cloud, it the obvious way to look at it is dont we have some kind of contextual sense of privacy . When you tell your doctor about your symptoms, you expect your doctor will not tell anybody else about your symptoms or share the pictures of your medical exam. You have plenty of situations where we can think about it not related to the charged issue of womens naked bodies, but think about all the ways we expect our information should be kept confidential within a relationship even though we have given it voluntarily. When we consider it that way, it is helpful did think about what we do in other contexts. Do we protect peoples credit card information, Social Security information, home addresses, do we protect ompanies trade secrets . We have criminal penalties when people step outside of this particular contexts, and it is useful to think about why we should order should not apply people step outside of this particular contexts, and it is useful to think about why we should order should not apply those remedies here, because it is true we can come up with ways for victims to talk about copyright remedies. Opyright remedies. Its not going to work for the vast majority of victims who have no resource. It takes time to figure out the takedown process. You need to have a lawyer backing you up. Even when get it removed from one site it will popup on 20 others. Copyright is really not a effective solution for the mass majority of victims. It is not Just Relationships going sour but actual ongoing Domestic Violence relationships that are being used to trap people in relationships. Weve seen that weve had plenty of Sexual Assaults that are being recorded and broadcast. This is a big category of intimate material that is out there. The idea theres any kind of lawsuit or copyright material i think it is abstract given what actual victims experiences have been. I also think its important again as were trying to think about adequacy of legal remedies to think, yes, completely about First Amendment values and to think about the goals of section 230. And in that thinking consider how much of an effect i would say a disciplinary effect these types of harm are having on omens speech. How many women are afraid to commit themselves truly to their careers or to online discourse because theyre afraid that this is whats going to happen to them. This is the punishment that will be given to them. The laws unless you have tons of money and tons of time which many of these victims will not have because theyve been fired from their jobs or kicked out of their schools. I think thats a sense that we have to take seriously about how much this is affecting not only women but the epidemic is using the threat of this type of behavior, using the actual use of this behavior as a way to shut women up and drive them offline and as a speech matter, as a section 230 matter in the interest of fostering eek quality, we should all hear about that. If i may disrupt the order a bit . David, if you could go in depth on your opening statements. What are some of the ways that the law understands have tried to grapple with some of the issues and what ways have people sort of looked at adapted the laws before the internet was what it was today. The hacking is the hacking side of the problem. It is one that may well have been in this specific instance a violation. Accessing a protected computer without authorization gives rise to a civil and criminal liability under the federal code. Obviously im not giving anybody legal advice or taking a position on whether or not it is but thats certainly one avenue. ,here are also on the tort side there are both several people mentioned there are a number of state law tort remedies for some of this behavior, intentional infliction of forional distress being one outrageous conduct and outrageous activity is another. I guess theres i word in response to what mar a ann said, of copyright to i think it is not sensible. Let me say the copyright act is one place in the federal code where a grieved aggrieved parties can quickly arrange to have without a lawsuit quickly to arrange to have material aken down from the internet. If you have a im not alt reasons she mentioned. It probably covers a small subset of the problem. But i think 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 materials for one reason or another they believe they have a claim on. You send the message, they hack you, more or less give you some procedure to follow if they want to claim the copyright immunity they do so, you click. You say it gets millions of times a day. This operates to actually remove the material from that from the site. And one other very quick comment i want to make about the notion again as mary an was saying does the law have to wait until something bad happens before providing a remedy . I think in this context the answer may be yes most of the time because this is a lot of what were talking about falls into the category of protected speech or speech. Theres a very serious problem with sort of a that says you cant put it up in the first place. That would avoid much of the harm, but that raises even more serious First Amendment problems than sort of expost regulation of this which raises its own problems. Is that has to be taken that has to be thought about more carefully. And, rob, you mentioned the fraud abuse act. Im sort of reminded of several years ago when sarah palins email addr