Google, Big Tech Lobby Accused Of Killing NY Revenge Porn Bill

Carrie Goldberg, a New York-based attorney and victims’ advocate, live-tweeted as the Senate chose not to vote on the measure – and made no bones about who she felt was to blame for the legislature’s inaction.

Google battling against NY anti-'revenge porn' bill. This morning senators were on board to vote. Now, at 11th hour, they're cowards who care more about greedy corps than NYers sexual privacy @nahmias@ctlizb @nickreisman @gormleyalbany @jimmyvielkind https://t.co/hNN7FdUSd2

— Carrie A. Goldberg (@cagoldberglaw) June 20, 2018

Greedy @Google is fighting against NYS revenge porn legislation b/c it's more profitable to have abuse victims naked and exposed on the internet than to get these links removed from their searches.

— Carrie A. Goldberg (@cagoldberglaw) June 20, 2018

While the adult entertainment industry doesn’t produce or promote revenge porn, poorly-drafted legislation targeting nonconsensual distribution of intimate images has the potential of applying to explicit images which depict people who are not available to consent, or newsworthy photos which may be published over the objection of those depicted. It was weaknesses along those lines which ultimately sank an earlier iteration of Arizona’s revenge porn law, which was successfully challenged by the ACLU on behalf of a coalition of bookstores, publishers and photographers.

Google has declined to comment on Goldberg’s criticism, but a representative of the company directed members of the media to Google’s policy on removing “unwanted and explicit personal images” as well as a three year-old blog post expressing the search engine’s disapproval of revenge porn.

“Our philosophy has always been that Search should reflect the whole web,” Google’s Senior Vice President of Search Amit Singhal wrote in the post. “But revenge porn images are intensely personal and emotionally damaging, and serve only to degrade the victims—predominantly women. So going forward, we’ll honor requests from people to remove nude or sexually explicit images shared without their consent from Google Search results.”

John Olsen, the Internet Association Director for the Northeast Region, issued a statement in which he said the Association and its member companies “share the goals of New York State policymakers who want to rid the internet of non-consensual sexual imagery.”

“We already work to prevent bad actors from using platforms to engage in this terrible activity,” Olsen said. “We will continue working with lawmakers who are committed to solving this problem.”

Judging by her tweets and statements to the media this morning, it’s safe to say Goldberg isn’t buying Google and the Internet Association’s commitment to fighting the spread of revenge porn.

Sexist @google supports revenge porn

— Carrie A. Goldberg (@cagoldberglaw) June 20, 2018

“It’s deeply disturbing that Google and tech lobbyists were quiet as a church mouse for the five years this bill has been percolating in Albany and then literally the morning it’s up for vote, they bulldoze in with coercive demands on our lawmakers to change the language,” Goldberg told the New York Post.

Had it passed, S.642 would have established the crime of “unlawful dissemination of an intimate image.” A conviction for unlawful dissemination of an intimate image in the second degree would have been a Class A misdemeanor, while a first-degree offense would have been deemed a Class E felony. Under New York law, a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by not more than one year in jail and a fine of up to $1000, while a Class E felony carries up to four years in prison.

Under S.642, a person would be guilty of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image in the first degree when “he or she commits the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image in the second degree and has previously been convicted within the past ten years of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image in the first or second degree.”

While some reports state the bill would have made it easier for victims of revenge porn to sue web hosts and other ISPs to remove offending images, it’s not clear to which language in the bill this claim pertains. While the bill would have added new language to section 250.40 and other subsections of New York penal law, none of those changes appear to reference web hosts or ISPs.

Meanwhile, there is language in the bill which appears to maintain the status quo with respect to existing “safe harbor” provisions which indemnify ISPs against the actions of third parties who use their services.

“Nothing in this act shall be construed to impose liability on an interactive computer service for content provided by another person,” the bill states. “The term ‘interactive computer service’ means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.”

While the bill is most likely dead until the next legislative session in New York, lawmakers could call for a special session to conduct a vote on the measure. Thus far, there’s no indication the legislature plans on taking that route.