logo
#

Latest news with #ACLU

Age Verification For Adult Services Began This Week In The UK
Age Verification For Adult Services Began This Week In The UK

Forbes

timea day ago

  • Business
  • Forbes

Age Verification For Adult Services Began This Week In The UK

It has been a big week for the digital identity sector in the UK this week because of the imposition of age verification for adult services. This means that I've been thinking about such services a lot this week. I realise it is a sensitive topic to cover in family-oriented publication, but it is important, so I will do my best to highlight the implications without offending. Age Verification Is A Sensitive, But Important Topic Let me begin at the beginning. I remember seeing a tweet from Gillan Branstetter, Communications Strategist at the ACLU's Women's Rights Project in which she said that "The biggest red flag to me about crypto is most sex workers wanted nothing to do with it. I would trust a single sex worker on digital finance and security more than a conference hall of VCs and tech bros'. This tweet stuck in my mind at the time because I was curious as to whether the evident demand for adult services would translate into a demand for cryptocurrency. I just logged in to a popular adult side to create an account for research purposes — not in my real name, of course — and found that I could choose between Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Tether and some other cryptocurrencies to pay with. Not that I bothered with any of them, because using cryptocurrency is such a hassle, but it did make me wonder whether there is now any real take up of cryptocurrencies in the adult sector. It seems not, by the way: a quick survey of the available literature would seem to indicate that adult services represent a tiny fraction of Bitcoin transactions, for example. That in turn reminded me of the BBC's excellent documentary on the technology of the modern payment card (The Secret Genius of Modern Life Series 1: Bank Card), in which the presenter Hannah Fry explored the role of the adult sector in the evolution of the modern bank card industry. She made the point that rampant chargebacks for adult services of all kinds in the early days of the internet drove the rapid development of authorisation and authentication techniques for 'card not present' transactions. Why do I remain so fascinated by this history? Well, as one adult industry executive summarised rather nicely for the Financial Times: The story of the porn industry is the story of trying to take payments. Indeed. And I remember a very interesting Slate podcast that touched on this, featuring Samantha Cole talking about her book 'How Sex Changed the Internet, and the Internet Changed Sex'. She made the point that a great many payment-related innovations came directly from the demands of the adult sector: subscriptions, paywalls, online card use and so on. These people have a point: adult services have pushed the development of new technologies is well-established and it is clearly especially true about the world of payments. (As an aside, I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Middle Men, but it's an enjoyable 2009 fictionalised version of the story of the men who invented online commerce by figuring out how to take credit card numbers over the internet. The adult industry was early into the space, has constantly evolved paid content technology and business models, and has all sorts of experience with anti-fraud techniques and all the rest of it. And it is certainly true that well beyond the internet, the demands of the adult sector have driven technological development. The movie, by the way, has an amazing backstory, because the producer Christopher Mallick was one of the real-life inspirations behind the film.) I am now beginning to wonder if adult services might also have a similar impact on the world of identity. The UK has just implemented age verification for adult services, in common with many US states, and the initial statistics seem to show a substantial uptake in the use of new identity technologies (not mention a substantial uptake in the use of Virtual Private Networks, VPNs. Proton, the Swiss-based company behind the top VPN app, said it had experienced a more than 1,800 per cent increase in daily sign-ups from UK-based users. Similarly, Nord said there had been a 1,000 per cent increase in UK purchases of VPN subscriptions.) So what is the impact on digital identity services? How exactly are the online checks being done? Well, under the UK's new Online Safety Act (OSA), the regulator has outlined age verification methods that it considers "highly effective' (which is the compliance benchmark). These are: Different services have chosen different subsets of this list and I am sure over the coming weeks they will begin to work out which combinations work best with given demographics, but the key takeaway for me is that with millions of monthly users, a substantial fraction of the British population will soon have experience in using age verification, and not only for adult sites. I am watching these dynamics closely, because age verification is a canary in the coal that raises serious questions about privacy protections. A database of people who visit pornographic sites, for instance, would be a rich target for scammers and extortionists. Thus, getting people used to credential-based transactions that are based on cryptography and not the storage of personally-identifiable information is a big win for both privacy and security. Adult Services As Trailblazer Of course, in time, the new identity technologies and the new payment technologies will come together. If I can have a pseudonymous wallet from (for example) my bank and I can use that wallet to hold stablecoins or central bank digital currency and I can use that money to visit an adult services site without adult site ever knowing my real name or any other personal details, and the money issuers having no idea who it was who used the currency at the site, then we have a much better infrastructure for the post-industrial always-on society and not only for adult services. For this to work, the wallet needs to provide two functions to the adult sites: a persistent and unique site-specific identifier, and a cryptographic proof that the wallet owner is over 18. Just as adult services drove the evolution of the online payments sector, so perhaps it will be the adult sector that drives the adoption of convenient and effective privacy-enhacing identity services just as it drove the adoption of convenient and effective payment services!

GOP bullish on dismantling Voting Rights Act
GOP bullish on dismantling Voting Rights Act

The Hill

timea day ago

  • Politics
  • The Hill

GOP bullish on dismantling Voting Rights Act

Republicans are increasingly bullish they can whittle away at the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as Democrats renew a long-shot effort to broaden the landmark law that turns 60 next week. The Supreme Court could become the arbiter of Republicans' efforts, with a major Louisiana redistricting battle set for rehearing next term and other battles bubbling up in the lower courts. The conservative-majority high court has already eviscerated significant parts of the VRA, but the new legal fronts could reshape decades-long precedent of legal battles over political power. 'There are clouds around, and a lot of them are circling the Supreme Court at the moment,' said Adriel Cepeda Derieux, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. With Democrats viewing the law as under siege from federal court rulings, a group of Democratic senators reintroduced a bill Tuesday that would restore and expand protections of the VRA. The legislation would reimpose the VRA's requirement struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court that jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices receive federal approval before changing their voting laws; prevent voters from being purged from voter rolls if they haven't voted recently; and add protections for poll workers against threats and intimidation. 'Voting rights are preservative of all other rights,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said at a press conference announcing the bill's reintroduction. 'The democracy is the very house in which we live. It is the framework in which we get to fight for the things that we care about.' But the bill faces long odds in a Republican-controlled Congress and could face constitutional challenges, if ever enacted. Meanwhile, Republicans have set their sights on weakening the VRA by preventing voters and private groups from enforcing it. The GOP effort would cut off the ACLU and other prominent players that have long leveraged the law to challenge maps and voting practices, leaving lawsuits to the attorney general. 'Private litigants have been key to bringing these claims over the history of the Voting Rights Act's existence,' Cardozo Law School professor Wilfred Codrington said. 'And, in fact, all the cases that are sort of monumental cases include many private litigants. So, that is a big thing.' The push to eliminate a private right of action under the VRA has been met with mixed results so far. But Republicans feel encouraged by recent signals from some of the Supreme Court's conservative justices. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2021 publicly questioned whether private parties could sue under Section 2 — the VRA's most prominent remaining provision — which prevents states from discriminating against voters because of their race or color. 'Our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2,' Gorsuch wrote. 'Lower courts have treated this as an open question,' he stressed. Since then, Republicans have found success in one federal appeals court. In 2023, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed private groups can't bring Section 2 claims, turning away the Arkansas NAACP's claims that Arkansas's state House map packed and cracked Black voters. It effectively blocked private enforcement in the seven states covered by the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The case was never appealed to the Supreme Court, but two recent decisions by the 8th Circuit are inching the issue closer to the justices. Native American tribes headed to the Supreme Court's emergency docket this month after the 8th Circuit ruled the tribes couldn't challenge North Dakota's state Legislature map. Last week, the justices lifted the ruling. Thomas and Gorsuch publicly dissented alongside a third conservative justice, Samuel Alito. No justice explained their reasoning, but the case could return to the justices. It's not only Section 2. On Monday, an 8th Circuit panel unanimously ruled a lesser-known provision of the VRA — Section 208, which allows blind and disabled voters to receive help voting from a person they choose — also can't be privately enforced. The decision rejected a challenge to an Arkansas voting law. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement it 'means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas's laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.' The question over private enforcement may be irrelevant, depending on other cases that raise whether Section 2 can survive at all. Republican states have increasingly argued race-based redistricting is no longer constitutional after progress made in recent decades. But voting rights advocates said they were hopeful that what remains of the VRA will have more endurance than some fear. Cepeda Derieux pointed to the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, in which the court found a Republican-drawn map in Alabama likely violated the VRA in weakening Black voters' political power. He said this reinforced the constitutionality of Section 2, and the same legal reasoning was used in other cases to redraw maps in Louisiana and Mississippi. 'There's also cause for great hope,' he said. 'As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court … really upheld the heart of what remains of the Voting Rights Act.' Mark Gaber, the senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, argued that those trying to further limit the law's purview have shown an 'overzealousness' that has hurt them, leading to the Milligan case in which the court's majority gave a 'full-throated reaffirmation' of the law's constitutionality. He believes some read too much immediately into Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence that the country may reach a point where the VRA's time has passed. 'They're pushing the private right of action theory … and various other theories to chip away at it. And we'll find out, but I don't think what Justice Kavanaugh was saying is, 'Tomorrow, bring me a case that questions this,'' Gaber said. The questions have returned as the Supreme Court considers the newest phase of the redistricting battle in Louisiana. The state's Republican leaders seek to uphold their new congressional map that adds a second majority-Black district. The state is in an awkward position. Louisiana begrudgingly added the second district because a lower court ruled a design with only one likely violated the VRA. But in separate litigation, Louisiana has taken legal positions that would undermine that lower ruling — that private groups can't enforce Section 2 and the provision is unconstitutional as applied to the state. The Supreme Court was set to decide the case this summer. But without explanation, the justices ordered the case be reargued next term. Codrington said he wasn't optimistic and believes the court wants to still use the case 'to do something big.' 'I think the court was particularly worried about dealing a major blow to the VRA at that time when lots of other institutional changes were happening through the Supreme Court,' Codrington said. The Supreme Court has yet to announce what legal question it will consider when the case is reargued, meaning the scope of the case remains unclear. But Thomas, at least, is ready to rein in Section 2. 'I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore,' Thomas wrote in a solo opinion last month.

What to know about Judge Boasberg, the Trump foe at center of DOJ complaint
What to know about Judge Boasberg, the Trump foe at center of DOJ complaint

Fox News

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • Fox News

What to know about Judge Boasberg, the Trump foe at center of DOJ complaint

The Justice Department on Monday accused U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of misconduct, escalating the Trump administration's long-running feud against federal judges who have blocked or paused some of the president's most sweeping policy priorities. The complaint, reviewed by Fox News Digital, centers on remarks Boasberg allegedly made during a March 11 meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States — the national policymaking body for the federal courts, which meets twice per year and is headed up by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During that meeting, the complaint says, Boasberg "attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts" and the roughly two dozen other federal judges at the conference by suggesting that the Trump administration could "disregard rulings of federal courts," and trigger "a constitutional crisis." The complaint was sent at the direction of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and signed by her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle. Fox News Digital could not independently verify Boasberg's reported remarks at the March 11 meeting, and his office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials have argued the reported remarks were an attempt to improperly prejudice or influence Roberts and said they "undermined the integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary." The complaint asked, not for the first time, that Boasberg be removed from presiding over J.G.G. v. Trump, a lawsuit filed in March by lawyers for the ACLU and others on behalf of the hundreds of immigrants who were summarily deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison under the auspices of a wartime immigration law. The complaint — and its request to remove Boasberg from the most consequential immigration case of President Donald Trump's second term — is certain to test the already fraught relationship between the administration and the courts. Since Trump's inauguration in January, senior administration officials have excoriated dozens of so-called "activist" judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump's sweeping executive orders from taking force. Notably, the pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller attempted to sue Roberts earlier this year for his role overseeing the U.S. Judicial Conference, arguing in a long-shot legal bid that the group's actions went beyond the scope of what they allege are the "core functions" of the judiciary. Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump's biggest public foes. On March 15, several days after he allegedly made the remarks included in the DOJ complaint, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order seeking to block Trump's use of a 1798 wartime-era immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. Boasberg ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen, and later, ordered a new investigation to determine whether the Trump administration had complied with his orders. In April, he ruled that the court had grounds to move on possible contempt proceedings, though that ruling was stayed by a higher appeals court, which has yet to consider the matter. His March 15 order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of deportation-related court challenges across the country — though the one brought before Boasberg was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants' due process protections under the U.S. Constitution. However, it also placed Boasberg squarely in the crosshairs of Trump officials — including the president — as the administration moved to unleash a blitz of executive orders and target judges who tried to block them. Their attacks have centered closely on the behavior of several judges — but no one more so than Boasberg, an Obama appointee who was originally tapped by then-President George W. Bush in 2002 to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has repeatedly used her podium this year to rail against "radical left-wing judges," accusing them of overstepping their authority and undermining presidential powers. Trump suggested earlier this year that Boasberg could be impeached for his actions, describing the judge as a "troublemaker and agitator"— and prompting a rare public rebuke from Justice Roberts. For some, the complaint seems to be well-timed: Boasberg ordered the Justice Department and the ACLU to court for a status hearing last week to determine the status of the 252 CECOT plaintiffs who were deported to Venezuela from El Salvador as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Boasberg ended the hearing by ordering the administration and the ACLU lawyers to submit a joint status update to the court on Thursday, Aug. 7, and to continue to do so every two weeks thereafter, as he weighs what options the court has to order relief. When asked at a status hearing in court last week whether the Justice Department would comply with the court's orders, DOJ lawyer Tiberius Davis said they would, "if it was a lawful order." Davis added that DOJ would likely seek an appeal from a higher court. Notably, it's not the first time the Trump administration has tried to have Boasberg removed from overseeing the case. The Justice Department in March asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Judge Boasberg from presiding over the Alien Enemies Act case and have it reassigned to another federal judge. The appeals court never took action in response to the request. The White House has repeatedly argued that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to block what it calls the president's lawful agenda — though the judges say Trump's actions violate the law. Still, the first six months of Trump's second term have been marked by repeated court clashes, as the administration pushes ahead with its agenda and targets those standing in its way. That sentiment was echoed by former acting ICE Director and current border czar Tom Homan. 'I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks," he said earlier this year in an interview. "We're coming. Another fight. Every day."

Hearing held in San Francisco over Trump administration's move to end temporary protected status for immigrants
Hearing held in San Francisco over Trump administration's move to end temporary protected status for immigrants

CBS News

time3 days ago

  • Politics
  • CBS News

Hearing held in San Francisco over Trump administration's move to end temporary protected status for immigrants

In its quest to remove immigrants from the United States, the Trump administration is now going after those who hold Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. A deadline has been set for immigrants from three protected countries to lose their legal status, and in San Francisco, on Tuesday afternoon, arguments were heard in a lawsuit challenging the decision. The news conference before the hearing began with a Honduran band playing upbeat Latin music. "They have built their lives here. Some have bought homes, raised children, pursued their education and their dreams," said lead attorney Emmy MacLean with the ACLU. But the issue was deadly serious. Holders of TPS status come from 17 countries that the US government has decreed to be too dangerous, either from repressive governments or natural disasters. Sindia Lama fled her native land of Nepal following a devastating earthquake in 2015. "I was deeply grateful. My country was in crisis and returning would not have been safe," she said. "TPS allowed me to work, support my family, and live here without fear. Now, nearly 20 years later, this country is my home." But if TPS end on Aug. 5, Sindia's legal status will be revoked, with the same happening to people from Nicaragua and Honduras the following month. In a July interview with CBS News, Todd Lyons, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said, "One difference you'll see now is under this administration, we have opened up the whole aperture of the immigration portfolio." If ICE encounters someone "that is here in the country illegally, we will take them into custody," Lyons said. TPS was created in 1990 after the U.S. got involved in a civil war in El Salvador and needed a way to protect refugees from the conflict. Now, those here under that protection face an uncertain future. "The government has broken its promise, violated the law," said attorney McLean. "So, these brave individuals are here today in federal court to say that the law still means something. And President Trump and DHS Secretary Noem are not above the law." Johnny Silva, who moved from Honduras as a toddler, said he stepped up because it was a matter of conscience. "I joined this lawsuit because I feel it in my heart that I have to stand up for people and for others like me," he said. "The government decision to terminate TPS for Hondurans and many other countries doesn't just hurt TPS holders. It hurts our families, our friends and our communities." Tuesday was the lawsuit's first hearing before a federal judge. President Trump tried to end TPS in his first term, but it was held up in the courts. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is arguing that there is no more threat in those designated countries. "Honduras hasn't even recovered from Hurricane Mitch," said Pablo Alvarado with the National Day Labor Organizing Networks. "So, TPS was essential in the early 90s, was essential when the hurricanes took place, and continues to be essential now. And we have to protect it." There were about 72,000 people living with TPS in California and 1.1 million in the U.S. as of Sept. 30, 2024, a report to Congress citing Citizenship and Immigration Services data states. The Department of Homeland Security has ordered immigrants from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua be stripped of their legal status and work authorization in 60 days. Cameroon was listed as having TPS ending as well on the Citizenship and Immigration Services website, and in a news release, the Department of Homeland Security said Secretary Kristi Noem had rescinded the TPS extensions for Venezuela and Afghanistan.

Trump administration appeals order that halted immigration raids in Southern California
Trump administration appeals order that halted immigration raids in Southern California

CBS News

time3 days ago

  • Politics
  • CBS News

Trump administration appeals order that halted immigration raids in Southern California

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday heard the Trump administration's case to overturn a temporary order halting Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in California. During the hearing, the Trump administration's attorneys argued that the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the original federal lawsuit, did not have legal standing to present the case. "All the court had, really, was a series of declarations from individuals who say they were stopped, or questioned, or arrested, but that does not tell us if the Fourth Amendment was violated in connection with those stops," Trump administration attorney Yaakov Roth. They also denied allegations of racial profiling and told judges they were not aware of deportation quotas. "They are the ones who are doing categorical determinations," ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar said. "They are the ones who are making stops and arrests without any case-by-case analysis of reasonable suspicion. On July 11, a judge sided with the ACLU, Los Angeles and immigrant rights groups who argued that federal agents had targeted people based on skin color, performed raids without warrants and denied legal counsel to detainees. In a statement following the ruling, White House Spokesperson Abigail Jackson called the order a "gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal." "No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy – that authority rests with Congress and the President," Jackson said. "Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge." Two of the judges on the appeals panel were appointed by former President Bill Clinton. Former President Joe Biden appointed the third. The Trump administration asked for a swift decision. It's unclear when the panel will issue a ruling.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store