Legality of unlawful data on blockchain?
Simple situation here. People post illegal data to the blockchain. Whether it be copyright infringement, hate speech, child porn - there's illegal data of various types across a broad spectrum. There's already some such illegal data on the Steem blockchain.
Steemit.com and all frontends, of course, have to react and remove such content off their websites.
But it still remains on the blockchain. The blockchain itself is not under any jurisdiction, but there's no blockchain without multiple copies of the same in real, physical servers, across the world.
So, if I'm running a Steemd node in a country with hate speech laws, copyright laws, etc. - is not actively running the Steem blockchain an illegal act? As a witness I'm even actively contributing to it. Who knows, maybe my witness node has signed in illegal data onto the blockchain at some point. But that's besides the point - there's illegal data on the Steem blockchain and I'm running it.
I have spoken to my lawyer about this, and he has advised me to stop running a witness node for the Steem blockchain. He is of the opinion that the illegal data must be removed from the blockchain - just the frontend is not enough. I'm looking for further opinion on the matter.
Pretending that I’m a lawyer in real life (just for pretendsies), your lawyer is giving you sound advice, if also on the more cautious side of risk aversion.
Within common-law jurisdictions, the issue that @dirge brings up about a lack of precedent, is actually something that works AGAINST you and your risk of liability (criminal and civil) rather than in your favor.
This is because, as common law jurisdictions go, when there is no law touching on a particular issue directly such that there is a binding statute or binding case-law precedent, and a party brings a cause of action against the alleged person who caused harm, they will attempt to make that cause of action (i.e. lawsuit) “sound” under an already existing parallel theory of law and try to build up a case based upon persuasive authorities with fact patterns that are conceptually similar.
And then, it’s a matter of whether or not the particular trial judge and jury (at the trial level and then the numerous Judges at the various levels of appeals) determine that the legal theories put forth based on those persuasive authorities is strong enough to extend the law out to the blockchain by the type of legal analogy utilized for nee situations like this.
Which means, practically speaking, it’s a crapshoot. You can’t readily predict how this will go, and that means the risk is always there, especially if you consider that common law judges don’t always extend laws in “common-sense” ways (ask American first amendment lawyers about privacy law being rooted in the “penumbras formed by emanations” from the Bill of Rights if you want to get an idea about how law can spin-off into abstract ideas that no one could have ever predicted from a more textually-grounded interpretation...leaving aside critical theory, reader response stuff for a second).
tl;dr: There’s not enough precedent on the issue, which means there’s no way to predict in common-law jurisdictions how the law or courts will go. This means your risk, generally, sits at around 50/50. Your lawyer is giving you sound advice.
good to know, sexy hipster Stalin @ilt-yodith
Why does everyone keep calling me that?
(not my area)
Hardforks can destroy data right?
Couldn't this be run on a complaint schedule somehow? It would also be nice to be able to burn dead/abusive accounts and return the names into the selection pool.
There is also the right to be forgotten laws which will cause some issues.
Yes, hardforks can destroy data. I cover this in a comment below. Yes, right to be forgotten laws apply to here too. I see Google lost the case.
A vast majority of Steem witnesses and nodes operate out of Germany. It has strong laws on a lot of these topics, and I can assure you there's thousands of posts on the Steem blockchain that blatantly violate EU laws.
PS: Witnesses should probably consider moving their servers to jurisdictions with lax legal systems at some point. Moving themselves too, for that matter.
PPS: Further on that, there could be a moderation system where posts reported by authorities or citizens can be put forward to top witnesses to vote on for removal. If ~15 (don't remember the exact number) of the top 20 witnesses vote to remove some content, it'll lead to a new fork. That'll lead to thousands of forks, and in general seems like a messy situation. Just thinking out loud here.
There are definitely a lot of challenges a decentralized community is going to face and some (like this) are going to have massive ramifications and require large concessions to authority or changes in legislation by the authorities to accommodate it.
While we are in infancy mode and they are playing catch up, there is a chance that foundational developments can be made and as people globally pour in, we are able to force legislation changes. If too many keep bickering for too long as they look for short gains, the authorities will move before the chains and shut and lock the floodgates to stop the onboarding needed to tip the scales in the favour of people over government.
The question is, can we come together before they circle their wagons?
This is an incredibly important topic, and our (especially @theaustrianguy's) attempts to adress related issues in the Austrian community haven't been met with kindness. Many of the hardcore blockchain-believers insist in remaining ignorant to the threat this implies to regular users, but especially to witnesses. Ty for bringing this up to a broader audience.
Imo there has to be a solution to remove content from the blockchain under certain conditions. But this is extremely controversial and hard to implement, I'm sure.
Citizens are bound by the laws and constitution of their lands. Pretty simple concept, really. Doesn't matter what one believes.
I agree. Problem is that many see STEEM as a lawless utopia (though one could discuss if it's developing into a dystopia, actually) and try to negate that law still applies. A notion that springs from wishing it was so, probably.
The idea of a lawless utopia is utterly dystopian.
That's really an interesting matter...
Maybe there could be a feature, that if a post is edited or deleted it still exist on the blockchain but (former versions of) the post can't be get from the blockchain do be displayed.
Then you would need an 'unlawful' tool/website to publish the former/deleted posts. The problem would be transferred from 'that a post may not be readable at all somehow' into 'a post is not allowed to be displayed with legal web interfaces any more'.
Well, it's just a first idea which came into my mind... 😔 @peekbit
good idea I think... 👍🏼
😊
I absolutely agree with your assessment that, if you own the database, you own the illegal content. I don't see two ways about it. You're at risk.
However, as a stopgap measure you should use the burden of proof against any accuser and make it at least difficult for them to obtain proof. No proof, no warrant, no indictment e.t.c..
Now, I'm not versed in the technology, but a Steem node is a server, right? And each witness controls their own server then, correct? So if all witnesses were to run a kind of coordinated blacklist they could prevent any retrieval of specific blocks, before they reach any front end, where, as you point out, some control measures take place, but too late.
In a next step, the database and the witness software will have to become one. This will ensure that the database is useless, unless run through the official witness server software (with the blacklist). I guess there would have to be a hardfork for that, to destroy illegal content up to that point. Also, the blacklist would have to become immutable - once on it, nothing can get off. With such a change, you might still hold the illegal content, but there is no way to get to it anymore.
Legally it's kinda like deleting stuff on a hard drive I suppose. Unless wiped a few times, the data is really still there, but who would go for an indictment on account of deleted data? How would one prove intent of any malfeasance?
Does this make sense?
Yes, each witness controls their servers, which runs their Steem node. The database and software are integrated into one package called Steemd.
It requires 15 or 16 out of top 20 witnesses to co-ordinate on a hardfork. That's what it'll require essentially to remove content. However, to do this every time there's illegal content seems very messy to me.
There's no issue if a service provider removes the content and co-operates with the authorities to find who posted it. But as a Steem witness, especially as a low ranked reserve witness, I don't have the option of removing the content available to me.
Yes, I understand that from the other comments and agree: too messy. What I'm trying to propose is a stepped change of the entire software package. First a quick fix to show goodwill AND make it harder for the authorities to get proof. Then a permanent filter mechanism at the first point of data retrieval.
To my limited understanding it should be possible - is it? (Technically; never mind consensus issues for now. )
That would be possible on a centralized solution like Reddit. Not practical on Steem.
I didn't read the other comments, so I may be duplicating, but I have always wondered what would happen when somebody registered an existing company or brand name as a username and started posting things the brand name owner doesn't like. I mean names like McDonald's, Chevrolet, Apple, Goldman Sachs, etc. They could and maybe would go to court in every country a node is running. I'm not entirely sure the blockchain would survive, but then, I am not a lawyer, I am happy to say.
actually, that has occurred in at least once instance... @grumpycat is a brand name being used by a current whale.
All it would take is one overzealous prosecutor in a tiny jurisdiction to make a major issue of this that could literally disrupt the blockchain. That's a little scary.
There's some talk of hardforks here, so what about the idea of adding a 'delete method' in the next hardfork that could only be called by the same supermajority of witnesses necessary for an actual hardfork. Basically, a way to delete illegal content and reduce liability for witnesses by physically removing that content from the servers they maintain, without requiring witnesses to deploy new code like an actual HF. Is that even possible or just wishful thinking?
Thanks for opening the discussion on this, I think it might be a bigger deal than we realize.
I mean, there's plenty of trash in the BTC ledger right? And other blockchains as well. There hasn't been any active litigation against that, yet. And BTC would be first. Here's on link that discusses this topic.
Seems like the question is not if but when. That said, there's yet to be litigation, right? What's the legal precedent here? You're a witness to a social media site. Why are you liable for what people post? What judge would actively try to press charges against you for that? Or any witness?
I'd say its a scare tactic, but Steemit wouldn't be the main target. BTC would be. There's little to no precedent that endangers you, as an individual. I'm also not a lawyer, so
Fascinating article, thanks. I'll look more into the BTC stuff.
To be clear, whether it endangers a witness individually is not the question here. I'm just asking whether it is illegal. Thus far, it looks like it definitely is. Possession on illegal content is the legal precedent here. All data on the Steem blockchain is stored on my servers. As a centralized agency, I'd immediately delete all illegal data, but as a witness to a blockchain, I'm unable to do so and the illegal data still lies in my possession. No different from an individual with a child porn collection, doesn't matter what they do with it.
Under that theory, that you are personally responsible for illegal data on the blockchain, all the cloud services are exactly as liable as are you, and I don't see them being prosecuted under such statutes anytime soon.
Maybe FOSTA/SESTA changes that calculus. Maybe the attack imminent and ongoing on Silicon Valley by the anti-globalist forces changes that. Dunno. Amazon, Microsoft, etc., are no less vulnerable to the exact same legal theory as are blockchain witnesses, however.
Except Amazon can instantly remove content from their servers when hit with a DMCA notice, for example. I can't do shit.
The sales pitch for the cloud has been that the data isn't available to the providers, that's it's your data, secure and private, encrypted on the cloud.
Are you saying that cloud providers are aware of the content of the data that is stored on the cloud? Because they would have to be, in order to be able to remove it.
They pitch the above mentioned privacy assuming you abide by their ToS and the laws of their land.
When the authorities issue a notice to take down illegal data, the cloud providers have to comply - track down and remove the data from their servers. The recent CLOUD Act further clarifies situations where the US government can issue takedown notices on US cloud providers even if they host content overseas. (Of course, there are provisions in place for cloud providers and citizens to challenge these. Note, CLOUD Act principally focuses on surveillance, i.e. FBI requesting data about an individual using the services, but it extends to removal of illegal data as well.
Well, what you are stating is the capability of LE to know that illegal data is in the cloud means that the clouds aren't secure at all, and that the providers are completely aware of all the data in the cloud, and so is LE.
Do I understand correctly?
This is a very interesting conundrum, and I'll throw out my first impression regarding the issue.
There are a multiplicity of jurisdictions in the world, and each of them claims authority over a given geopolitical region. While there are many synchronicities between them, all of them have differences, each from the others.
This means that there is no universal law that governs all, and that things that are legal in one jurisdiction are illegal in others, and vice versa. There is no one course that will keep your actions legal in every jurisdiction extant--except to confine your actions to those few that are universally accepted as legal in every jurisdiction; to so dumb down your speech that it is essentially without purpose or utility; to become so vapid as to offend no one.
I do not see that as an acceptable solution.
Rather, I see the entire point of decentralization to create a new jurisdiction that supersedes all others, gaining it's power from the voluntary adoption of free persons, and negating the power of violent force that currently empowers extant jurisdictions of geopolitical extent.
Since any jurisdiction affected by the blockchain might bring a cause of action against any node of the blockchain, I believe that ALL of the extant jurisdictions are revealed as void of authority over the voluntary blockchain, and that it's rules are those that matter.
Clearly, those geopolitical jurisdictions will not agree, but no revolution has ever succeeded without opposing extant power. Make no mistake, blockchain is a revolution in political power. That's probably, in one form or another, why you're here.
Perhaps soon you will be able to acquire server space on one of the networks that are being constructed beyond all geopolitical jurisdictions, in space. This would effectively solve your dilemma, in a just world.
I don't think we live in a world where the extant jurisdictions are just, however. I don't believe that jurisdictions rendered obsolete by technology are going to just hand over the power they profit from presently, regardless of right and wrong.
I encourage you to take a stand for freedom. I have done so in the past, and bear the scars of my defeat(s). Do not expect to do so without being challenged, or possibly suffering victimization at the hands of extant political forces that are being replace by voluntary associations.
Do so because those tyrannies must end, and only opposing them will end them.
We will be free, eventually. Weigh carefully your acceptance of risk and reward, and proceed according to your best assessment of that analysis.
Thanks!
It's a new branch of philosophy that we've barely explored, that pretty much came around with the advent of the Dark Web. Given that it's still a young, ever-evolving entity, the legality issues are likely going to fall flat for some time as things mature and progress.
To me, Childporn is always going to be on the pedo's hard drive, but we don't blame the printing company or the Mailman for distribution. We never shut down delivery services for delivering the photos, or illegal drugs because it became a vital enterprise. If they had any degree of reasonable control and failed to act regardless, that's another story.
Aside from the blockchain itself, I imagine individually and as a front end company, at worst you'd end up in front of congress in a zuckerberg-type discussion about how to do things better as told by confused old people:
Haha, I'm not really concerned about the consequences. Just trying to understand the law. Continuing to break the law because there's a low chance of being caught still makes you a criminal.
Anyway, when someone uploads some illegal data to the Steem blockchain, every single witness' hard drive holds this data. Not just witnesses, any one that wants to run a Steem node. That's the problem, and how it differs to your analogies.
Is it possible to encrypt as it passes through your systems? That would probably make all the difference (I'm illiterate so that might be a stupid question)
Doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not, it's still illegal.