Anonymisation: Managing Data Protection Risk Code Of Practice: Fill & Download for Free

First, we must disambiguate: the term artificial intelligence can mean two very distinct things in practice:Computerized decision-making. This is the traditional meaning of artificial intelligence, where a mechanical system makes policy decisions directly to save human time and effort. Examples include donor kidney matching algorithms, customer-facing virtual assistants in government offices, and even handwritten address recognition by the postal department.Computer-aided decision-making. This is the use of computer simulations, numerical forecasts and predictive analytics to inform decisions and recommendations made by humans. Examples include fire risk modelling, predictive policing, and decision support systems (such as IBM Watson).This disambiguation is needed because:The distinction is blurry…Both computerized and computer-aided decision-making often use the same techniques (logistic regression, k-means, algorithmic mechanism design, etc.) to arrive at the same decisions.This makes them effectively the same things under the hood, and thus have a common source for problems — bad choices of variables to model, quality and size of dataset to generalize, faulty assumptions, etc.… but the long-term risk profile in policy making is very different.Fully computerized decision-making is expected to be able to performa) securely, b) without supervision or with minimal supervision, c) armed solely with task-specific information, and d) with high accuracy even in unforeseen circumstances.Computer-aided decision making is not subject to such high performance expectations. Because it is a research tool, it is expected to be slower, more error-prone, requiring human intervention to adapt it to novel situations, in some cases with transparent methods open for anyone to inspect.Thus, not only are the kinds of risks and impacts different: the pressures that shape each’s improvements are divergent, and will result in individual safety approaches for each new application.I’m not going to address the many benefits both kinds of approaches offer — it is transparently obvious that computer approaches (whether autonomous or assistive) have a substantial role to play in government policy, whether it be in predictive efforts or in time savings and efficiency.What this answer will do, instead, is talk about unintended effects of this adoption in policymaking, as well as sensible risk mitigation strategies in policy. This will clarify the boundaries computer assistance or automation should have.Where is the Current Risk Right Now?Despite popular media depictions to the contrary, many of the dangers of AI use in policy currently come from computer-aided decision-making rather than computerized decision-making.This has several reasons:Adoption of computerized decision-making has been slower in government than in the private sector[1]owing to a shortage of expertise and a change-resistant culture.Where adopted, it has primarily been used in relatively narrow domains such as document drafting, virtual assistance, license plate reading, document translation and request routing[2] with low potential for both negative impact and size of negative impact.Computer-aided decision-making, in contrast, is both used more widely and more systematically by organizations — for example, estimates of how many police forces in the UK are using some form of algorithmic profiling are between 14% to 33%. [3]The negative impacts of computer-aided decision-making are significantly higher since they areused in high-impact areas across society[4], such as determining whom to lend to, whether individuals are likely to recidivate or should receive bail, and risk of child exploitation in familiesmore prone to systemic bias, rather than individual bias, on account of data quality and data engineering issuesconsidered more “reliable” because they are evaluated by a human layer despite the comparatively higher likelihood of mistakes at the human layer, meaning less security and regulation overall.This is not to say that computerized decision-making does not have concrete safety problems or potential for abuse or significant harmful applications in government, such as military use — they do, and there have been widespread efforts to address these technically and procedurally. It is almost certainly where the risk will be in the future, in things like predictive coding where small errors can be amplified enormously and detrimentally for end users.However, their current impact in public policy specifically is limited, so, unless it becomes more prominently used or involves higher-cost systems, focusing on it is not productive. The rest of this answer will focus only on computer-aided decision making.What are the Biggest Issues Surrounding Computer-Aided Decision Making?By far and away, the most frequently cited problem of computer-aided decision making is unfair systemic discrimination — that is, an algorithm violating one of the three criteria below[5]:1. Anti-classification: The model is fair if it does not use protected characteristics or proxies from which protected characteristics can be inferred.2. Classification or outcome error parity: The model is fair if protected groups receive equal proportion of positive outcomes, or equal proportion of errors.3. Calibration: An algorithm is well-calibrated if the risk scores it gives to people reflect the actual outcomes in real life for the people given those scores. Equal calibration definitions of fairness say that an algorithm should be equally calibrated between protected groups. For example, among those given a particular risk score, the percentage which then results in the predicted outcome should be the same between protected groups (e.g. men and women).Algorithmic bias is widespread and predominant[6][7]— I highlight just two instances of their impact below, taken from the UK government’s landscape survey on the subject, and a third from the Wikipedia article on artificial intelligence use in government:A 2015 study showed that many of the algorithms used by insurance companies in the US to create quotes for car insurance were relying on credit scores more heavily than driving records. This meant that in Florida, an individual with a clean driving record but poor credit score could end up paying $1,552 more for car insurance than the same driver with a drink driving conviction but an excellent credit score. …… Big Brother Watch have flagged concerns over potential biases in the facial recognition systems currently being trialled by some UK forces. In 2018 they identified high rates of misidentification (where an individual was inaccurately identified as a possible person of interest—i.e. a false positive), averaging around 95% across all trials, although this is beginning to change …… One example is the use of risk assessments in criminal sentencing in the United States and parole hearings. Judges were presented with an algorithmically generated score intended to reflect the risk that a prisoner will repeat a crime. For the time period starting in 1920 and ending in 1970, the nationality of a criminals's father was a consideration in those risk assessment scores.Today, these scores are shared with judges in Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. An independent investigation by ProPublica found that the scores were inaccurate 80% of the time, and disproportionately skewed to suggest blacks to be at risk of relapse, 77% more often than whites.[8]Where does algorithmic bias come from? One is invited to read reviews on the subject — suffice it to say human bias can occur before data curation, during feature selection, and after post-processing. In essence, fixing algorithmic bias end-to-end is a procedural problem that both reflects existing biases in collection and amplifies it during curation. Approaches to resolving algorithmic bias are still nascent: one hopes to see more work done on this front in the next few decades.The next most commonly cited issue is that computer-aided decision-making in policy often needs to be able to operate under stringent data protection standards such as HIPAA or FERPA in the US.This raises a number of challenges for improving computer-aided decision making:Not only must data be sufficiently anonymised before sharing or inclusion in a predictive or classification model, the model should not be able to inadvertently reveal the identity of anyone. This is surprisingly hard — public datasets can still be used to identify people even after de-anonymisation.A number of techniques have emerged in tackling the problem of sufficient anonymization such as k-anonymity and differential privacy. These are both fascinating topics providing rich guarantees on privacy.Somewhat sadly, usage of k-anonymity and differential privacy can have some negative effects on the accuracy of certain prediction models[9][10]. The task of being able to improve prediction accuracy in the wake of anonymization efforts is case-specific and must be tackled accordingly.Not all computer-aided decision making techniques in policy need to impact human groups, by the way — for example, forest management has a history of using computer-aided decision making to predict woodstack availability and model ecosystem growth! This happy group is immune to the issues I have discussed above, so one needs only look to forestry management for an example of a happy marriage between computer aid and public policy.The diligent reader is recommended to consult Law and AI, an excellent blog on the state of issues considering artificial intelligence across all sectors, for more information on all of these issues.What Should We Do?There is almost no consensus on this subject. We are still very much in the dawn of a new era regulating the use of computer-aided or computerized decision making.Below, I offer some recommendations based on the complaints and suggestions I've sampled from reviews on the subject for different risk mitigation strategies.Government agencies need to make the details of their algorithms public.One of the most significant issues preventing research into improvement is that there is wide variability in just how much different agencies are willing to share about their techniques or data sources — we still don’t know just how widespread some systemic deficiencies are for this reason.Open data is essential to every meaningful investigation. Without a culture of open data and information sharing amongst government bodies and the public, we cannot expect improvements in algorithmic decision-making or assistance in decision-making from a regulatory standpoint.Some regulation and/or process certification is going to be necessary to result in reduced systemic bias.This is a popular and common view per opinion polls, though some suggestions in this regard — such as an FDA-style approval process or organization — are too heavyweight (in my opinion) for something as low-barrier-to-entry as software development. In researching this question, I’ve found recommendations for crowdsourced regulations or citizen input to ensure that claims of bias are voiced and handled responsibly — this kind of grassroots participation is going to be completely necessary for government-led usage of computerized/computer-aided decision-making.Beyond ensuring a tight feedback loop on bias management, some process guidelines for ensuring data quality and minimizing bias amplification should exist. Recent legal efforts, such as the Algorithmic Accountability Act, miss the mark in several ways, but engineering organizations such as the IEEE are currently working on standards that seek to minimize algorithmic bias[11]. These kind of standards can easily be adopted into government agencies and government subsidiaries such as in the area of public health, where regulation already exists and compliance is high.Operators should regularly audit themselves for bias.[12]It isn’t going to be enough to just have regulation — it’s going to be necessary for organizations to approach themselves in a way that holistically checks for bias in the decision-making process. How this’ll work or look like is still very much up in the air — incentivising or encouraging companies to publish bias impact statements routinely is one good way to do it.Computer-aided decision making needs to be easily adjustable and modifiable, so governments need to adopt modern software techniques.Technical debt is a huge problem in many organizations, and computer-aided decision making systems are no exception. Scully et. al. wrote a remarkable paper outlining the many anti-patterns that crop up in machine learning pipeline design[13]that should be required reading for every data engineer or DevOps practitioner — often, these anti-patterns can cause immense bottlenecks in publishing improvements over time beyond a certain point of entrenchment.For public policy programs, being able to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively is going to be key to handling impacts. Implementing modern software practices — breaking data and culture silos, adopting an ownership model for production services, reducing time to deploy and ship — are all going to be vital to accomplish that.This quadrifecta — regulation and compliance, active citizens, motivated agencies, easily adaptable technology — are, to my mind, the key ingredients to minimizing AI risks in public policy. Tight transparent feedback loops with quick implementation times and a corrective focus on structural causes are theoretically the safest kind of systems to operate and develop, and that attitude should be reflected in public policymaking.tl;dr I think AI should play a large role in public policy because of its many benefits, and the risks (mostly limited to algorithmic bias right now) should be mitigated via structural change in how policymakers manage the algorithm development lifecycle to include best practices, rapid iteration, an active citizen feedback loop, and a culture of self-analysis.Footnotes[1] 5 challenges for government adoption of AI[2] https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/artificial_intelligence_for_citizen_services.pdf[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819055/Landscape_Summary_-_Bias_in_Algorithmic_Decision-Making.pdf[4] Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy - Kindle edition by Cathy O'Neil. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819055/Landscape_Summary_-_Bias_in_Algorithmic_Decision-Making.pdf[6] weapons of math destruction[7] How to be Human in the Age of the Machine: Amazon.co.uk: Hannah Fry: 9780857525246: Books[8] Algorithmic bias | Wikiwand[9] https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume5No11/Paper_26-A_Comparison_of_the_Effects_of_K-Anonymity_on_Machine_Learning_Algorithms.pdf[10] Privacy and data anonymization from a data scientist’s point of view[11] P7003 - Algorithmic Bias Considerations[12] Algorithmic bias detection and mitigation: Best practices and policies to reduce consumer harms[13] https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5656-hidden-technical-debt-in-machine-learning-systems.pdf

Just one?!I would decriminalize prostitution in every state. I would make null and void every prostitution penal code and related statute.I would also go after moral turpitude laws.Moral turpitude - Wikipedia“Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.”I would also like to see anti discrimination laws established or existing anti discrimination laws amended to include protections on behalf of sex workers and porn performers so they cannot be denied employment over their past work or charges.There are laws in place which address forced sex labor and a legal distinction should be made between forced sex labor and erotic services as a profession!ESPLERP publishes a policy agenda defining our ASKS….ESPLERP Policy Agenda 2018Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) 2018 Policy Agenda:This Policy Agenda promotes a rights-based approach, whereby consenting adults in the sex industry are neither perpetrators in need of punishment nor victims in need of rescue, but rather individuals with rights and agency who deserve to be recognized as free to make their own choices about their bodies and sexual behavior.Some legislatures are already making progress in this area. For example in 2017:● the District of Columbia moved to decriminalize sex work to promote public safety and health – Promoting Public Safety and Health DRAFT● New Hampshire established a committee to study decriminalizing sex work – New Hampshire HB287 | 2017 | Regular Session.We are hopeful that this Policy Agenda serves as a roadmap both for legislators and organizations, to help them adopt internal and public policies as well as madvance incremental legislation to address the discrimination and stigmatization that affects the sex worker community in general as a result of criminalization of prostitution in specific.ESPLERP Mission:The Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) is a diverse community-based erotic service provider led group which seeks to advance sexual privacy rights through legal advocacy, education, and research. In our legal advocacy, we create change through impact litigation and policy statements. This often involves education activities for policy makers and the public. And in our research work, our evaluation tool (ESPLERP Research Evaluation Tool) helps the public and academics maintain ethically and scientifically rigorous standards.As a prime example of impact ligitation, in March 2015, ESPLERP filed a complaint with the United States Federal District Court (http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/001_Complaint.pdf), known as ESPLERP v Gascon [case 16-15027], which challenged California’s anti-prostitution law, Penal Code 647(b), arguing for the decriminalization of sex work – that these laws deprive individuals of the fundamental right to engage in consensual, private sexual activity.We have some heavy hitters on our side. Decriminalization of sex work is supported by Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, the Lancet, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Global Commission on HIV and the Law. And our case is supported by amicus briefs from over thirty civil rights and LGBTQ organizations, including the ACLU, Lamdba Legal, the Free Speech Coalition, and the Transgender Law Center – Amicus Briefs Filed In Support Of ESPLERP v Gascon.In October 2017, ESPLERP v Gascon was heard before a three judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco – see ESPLERP V GASCON ORAL ARGUMENTS - DECRIMINALIZE - SEX WORKER RIGHTS. But in February 2018, the panel dismissed our case.The legal process is slow and long-winded, but it is an important strand in our fight for sexual privacy.But equally, as well as being criminalized, sex workers are subject to significant social and economic stigma and discrimination.Therefore, the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) sets forth the following practical legislative steps toward enfranchising all aspects of sex work:Definitions and Community:We define an erotic service provider (aka sex worker) as anyone, who earns a living from their erotic labor, including prostitutes (whether working indoors in massage parlors or brothels, in their homes or on an outcall basis to homes or hotels, or outdoors on the street), exotic or burlesque dancers and strippers, adult film performers, escorts, courtesans, dominants, submissives, phone sex operators and webcam performers.Anyone who consensually engages the services of an erotic service provider, we consider a client – not a “trafficker” or an “exploiter”, and also not a “john” (a slang term that is sexist and derogatory).Directly relying for their livelihood on the jobs of erotic service providers are support staff who act in capacities such as receptionists, agents, managers, drivers, warehouse workers, security, photographers, and even janitors in adult clubs.Beyond these support staff, there are also third parties whose livelihoods rely more indirectly but often substantially upon erotic service providers, such as website owners and operators, hairdressers, makeup artists, dance club owners, gym owners and personal trainers, taxi and rideshare providers, and even hospitality industry staff who work in the hotels and other establishments used by erotic service providers and their clients.We consider part of our community anyone who is an erotic service provider or who knowingly and consensually hires, pays, or provides support to an erotic service provider, and also our friends and family members who support us (whether in a formal or informal capacity).Background:Legislation has too often relied upon, or been an accomplice to, the criminalization of our labor as prostitutes / sex workers. We believe that, as argued in ESPLERP v Gascon [case 16-15027], this is clearly in violation of our constitutional right to sexual privacy.Many statutes define erotic service providers as “victims”, fail to recognize the agency of erotic service providers or our clients, and fail to provide equal protection under the law for members of our community. Labeling us as victims encourages a law enforcement approach toward our community, since the presence of a “victim” implicitly assumes the existence of corresponding “perpetrators” who must be brought to justice.The state commits violence against sex workers by:● harassing them – the Urban Justice Center found that 30% of street-based sex workers in New York had been threatened with violence by police officers, while 27% actually experienced violence at the hands of police – Revolving Door - Fact Sheet● arresting them — prostitution arrests are the usual means by which persons are labeled sex trafficking victims● victimizing them during incarceration (from other inmates, guards, from losing income, from being forced to work, from being away from family)● denying them access to support services, legal advocacy and safe space shelter● forcing them into state-provided or state-funded “diversion services”, which typically offer arrested sex workers the only way to avoid further prosecution● fining them, subjecting them to probation and loss of rights, and saddling them with a damaging criminal record.Anti-Trafficking:Laws like the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and California’s Proposition 35, FOSTA, SESTA use overly broad definitions which define our everyday personal and professional relationships as criminal associations, essentially defining our spouses, domestic partners, boyfriends and girlfriends, roommates, landlords, support staff, and others, may be prosecuted as sex traffickers and even forced to register as “sex offenders”.There are vast Federal investments in grants to “anti-trafficking” NGOs, where in collaboration with Federal and State agencies, they mount high profile prostitution sting operations under the guise of “rescue” such as Operation Cross Country (Is Operation Cross Country the Best Way to Fight Child Sex Trafficking?), which typically fail to find “traffickers”, but do criminalize consensual sex workers and their clients, and certainly do not provide services (such as counselling, housing, education) to ensnared individuals who are just trying to make a living.This slew of trafficking laws put the lives of both coerced victims and consenting erotic service providers in danger by maintaining a black market which attracts violence and creates unsafe working conditions. The cover story of the November 2015 issue of Reason Magazine accurately declares that “The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs” (The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs).In effect, the “War on Sex Trafficking” is a war on people who exchange sex for money.Another major consequence of the current approach to “sex trafficking” is that law enforcement is empowered to seize property, without due process, even if the property owner is never charged with a crime. In practice, property seizure results in untraceable profit for law enforcement agencies and their non-profit collaborators. For example, the Department of Homeland Security seized $1.4 million from Rentboy.com, and we have no idea how that money was spent. The only people who do not benefit from such seizures are the sex workers on the sharp end.The narrative on sex trafficking has now expanded to include “children” – whereby everyone under 18 who is found to be involved in prostitution is automatically defined as a “trafficked victim” – per the 2003 Federal Reauthorization Trafficking Victims Act. And in addition, at the State level, “Safe Harbor Laws” are being touted as a means to recognize youth as “victims” – which implies that no charges of prostitution should result. However, both the Federal and State approaches remand underaged people into “protective custody”, where they are often held in “witness protection” until they testify against someone. Therefore, laws like California SB1322 that mandates law enforcement to transfer such youth to “welfare services” actually violates these youths right to due process. (SB-1322 Commercial sex acts: minors.).In contrast to this law enforcement focus, research shows that funding long term necessities for youth (safe housing, employment, education, food, and money) is a far better approach – https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Youth%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Sex%20Trade_3.pdfPrinciples:We believe the following principles should be paramount in all legislative initiatives that affect our community.1. Nothing About Us, Without Us – When it comes to laws affecting people involved in the sex industry, the voices of those stakeholders must be heard front and center, and attitudes that “other” us and deny our agency must be excised from the legislative process.2.Our Bodies, Our Rights – Consenting adults have the right to be free from state criminalization of their sex lives, whether or not money is exchanged or any other consideration is involved.3.Individual Privacy, Institutional Transparency – Any legislation that affects our community must protect our privacy, and must guarantee that government agencies and service providers operate are held accountable for treating people humanely, non-coercively, and with integrity, dignity and respect.Policy Agenda:The criminalization of consensual sex creates a system with multiple levels of social and institutional discrimination. We therefore call for a rights-based approach which recognizes consenting adults in the sex industry as neither perpetrators in need of punishment nor victims in need of rescue, but rather individuals with rights and agency who deserve to be free to make their own choices about their bodies and their sexual relations.We therefore propose the following legislative steps toward ensuring greater safety and enfranchisement for erotic service providers…1. End discrimination against erotic service providers, clients and support staffa.Repeal moral turpitude lawsThese archaic laws limit the ability of people to gain employment after a prostitution arrest. Even non-criminalized erotic service providers such as exotic dancers, adult film performers, massage parlour staff, agency support staff, phone sex operators, professional dominatrixes/submissives and webcam performers may be negatively impacted by these laws. For example, Stacie Halas, a permanent certified teacher, was dismissed by her employer, Oxnard School District, when they learned of her previous employment in adult film – http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/120680877-Stacie-Halas-decision.pdf.b.Prohibit discrimination in access to publicly funded servicesIn its 2015 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights (UPR Report of the United States of America), the State Department affirmed United Nations Recommendation #86, stating, “We agree that no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution”. But there are numerous instances of State laws and regulations that still discriminate against our community. For instance, the California Victims Compensation Fund maintains language banning those who have been injured in the course of a prostitution transaction from receiving benefits. Language singling out people who work or have worked in porngraphy and/or prostitution is another form of victim-blaming and is completely inappropriate treatment of victims of sexual assault.c.Prohibit discrimination in judicial proceedingsVery often, erotic service providers are treated unfavourably in family court hearings (for example, covering child custody and/or divorce settlements). For example, Jessica Hernandez lost custody to an abusive partner, who subsequently killed the child, because the judge disdriminated against her based on her legal occupation as a stripper – Mother of slain child blames judge for death.d.Prohibit the use of sex worker status as grounds for discriminationPeople applying to State or local government for housing, education, or employment, should not be subject to discrimination based on their occupation. But, for example, Oakland’s 2014 “nuisance ordinance” targets prostitutes, and allows for the removal of tenants due to their perceived status. Such laws place the onus on the person being discriminated against to prove that they are not a prostitute. And mean that low-income tenants, transgender residents, and people of color are targeted and made homeless.2.Grant immunity from prosecution for prostitution offences to erotic service providers and our clients and support staff when they report more serious crimesCurrent legislation discourages erotic service providers, our clients and support staff, from reporting serious crimes. For example, the excessive fines imposed by California Proposition 35 discourages reporting crimes. This provides cover to the small number of actual sex traffickers, corrupt law enforcement officers, coercive third parties, and others who prey upon erotic service providers while leaving victims and witnesses of crime exposed to penalties.3.Establish a ‘Vacatur Law’ to automatically remove prostitution convictions and arrests from criminal and public recordsA ‘Vacatur Law” should be established whereby prostitution convictions and arrests can be automatically and completely removed from criminal and public records, without requiring people with criminal records to go through a complicated, onerous and expensive legal process.4.Prohibit the possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution in arrests or prosecutionsIn many jurisdictions, law enforcement and prosecutors can use possession of condoms as evidence of prosecution. In California, AB 336 went some way toward addressing this issue, but it still left the door open for prosecutors to make special motions allowing condoms to be used as evidence.5.Prohibit gender identity, sexual orientation and racial profiling of sex workersAs the ACLU argues in its supporting amicus brief for ESPLERP v Gascon (http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/22-Brief-of-American-Civil-Liberties-Union-Foundation1.pdf), legislation criminalizing sex workers, their clients and support staff, is “discriminatorily enforced against women (transgender and cisgender) and people who are LGBTQ and gender non conforming”. Women of color, transgender women and LGBTQ youth should not have to fear being arrested for prostitution just because a law enforcement officer considers their appearance indicative of prostitution.6.Prohibit mandatory HIV testing and repeal laws that criminalize HIV positive statusWith new medical advances against HIV (such as Truvada), the current level of state coercion employed against people with compromised immune systems is inappropriate. In California, with the passing of SB 239 in 2017, knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection, is now a misdemeanor, which is the same status as other STDs. We supported SB 239, but we need legislation to go further and decriminalize HIV status altogether.7.Monitor peer counseling ‘services’ provided by anti-trafficking or anti-prostitution non-profit groups and rape crisis centers receiving public fundingAnti-trafficking groups, anti-prostitution groups and rape crisis centers in receipt of public funds should be subject to independent ethics oversight. For example, Bay Area Women Against Rape, employed in the past an older man as a peer counsellor, who in additional to providing ‘counciling to adult women, as accompanied law enforcement on anti-prostitution sting operations claiming to rescue trafficked victims, specifically minors, and then acted as a primary “peer” counselor for the “rescued” minors. This presents a clear ethical conflict. And an older man counseling a minor does not meet the definition of peer-to-peer counseling let alone women in general. Such arrangements are ripe with potential for self dealing and conflict of interest and should be subject to independent ethics oversight.8.Implement a grievance process in publicly-funded anti-prostitution/anti-trafficking groups, rape crisis centers and domestic violence sheltersNon-profits and NGOs that provide services to prostitutes or trafficking victims, in particular rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, should be required to notify all service recipients of the process by which they can file complaints about the quality of the services they receive. State records of all such complaints should be maintained and available to the public, and any non-profits or NGOs that show consistently poor user satisfaction or engage in unacceptable practices should promptly be made ineligible for public funding.9.Implement public reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies that perform prostitution and human trafficking arrests, incarcerations and convictionsCurrently law enforcement agencies and task forces that perform prostitution and human trafficking operations, arrests, incarcerations and convictions, operate with a near complete absence of transparency. For example those that are listed here in the recent new report. More than 500 arrested, dozens saved in statewide crackdown on human trafficking They should be subject to Federal, State, county or city oversight, and be required to:a. make all meetings open to the publicb. publish names and roles of task force membersc. publish annual audits with all costs, including overtime pay, and any costs incurred by participating non-profitsd. publish anonymised details of arrests and convictions, together with demographic data (gender, age, race) on those who have been arrested and/or convictede. publish all Memoranda of Understanding between task forces, law enforcement agencies, non-profits or other agenciesf. implement public reporting requirements for publicly-funded non-profits and NGOs that provide services related to prostitution or human trafficking.10. Expand Privacy LawsWe require laws that protect the digital privacy of erotic service providers. The USA has signed on to the the UN Treaty on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), but there are many ways in which developments in surveillance have premptively violated our privacy.a. Stingray devices (also known as International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)-catchers) were initially developed for the military and intelligence community, but are now in widespread use by local and State law enforcement agencies, who use them to violate the privacy of erotic service providers. There is clearly a need for laws banning the use of these devices without a warrant to ensure that constitutional rights are protected.b. Our images are routinely scraped from public online ads sites and are published onto other online sites without our permission. This activity should be made criminally illegal, as erotic service providers have limited access to civil courts to pursue justice.c. We oppose license schemes that would expose erotic service providers to harassment and discrimination – such as requiring our legal names, date of birth, and social security numbers, and requiring us to submit to criminal background checks (Do licensing rules put adult entertainers at risk?). For example, a privacy watchdog in the Netherlands found that compulsory registration of sex workers breached privacy rules (http://thttp://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/08/registration-of-sex-workers-breaches-right-to-privacy-says-court/11. Protect the privacy of erotic service providers, clients, and support staff during undercover sting or surveillance operationsLaw enforcement agencies who invite journalists/media or members of nonprofits to accompany them on operations targeting the erotic service provider community should be required to inform such third parties that they are not allowed to film or record a person who is caught up in an operation, being arrested or in custody, without that individual’s consent. Such filming by “embedded” journalists and others violates our right to privacy, leads to exploitation of individuals, and stigmatizes the industry as a whole (see walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes/the-rescue-scam and Starchild’s testimony about having his rights violated during a prostitution sting operation. Starchild testimony.12. Establish regulations restricting prosecutorial misconductIt is unacceptable for prosecutors to coerce defendants in sex trafficking and prostitution cases into giving up their rights to due process and their day in court by threatening to go after them with draconian charges if they don’t accept plea bargains. There is a growing movement calling for limitations on prosecutors’ ability to force defendants to plea to charges they may not have committed. The State should establish strong penalties for such misconduct to deter prosecutors from abusing their power.13. Prohibit sexual contact by law enforcement during investigationsLaw enforcement officers and their agents should be prohibited from any sexual contact, including penetration, with anyone who is under investigation and/or in their custody or who are victims and/or . /,witnesses. Any violation should be prosecuted as a criminal sexual assault offence and restitution should be obtainable in civil courts. For example, Michigan Governor signed into law House Bill 4355 and Senate Bill 275 in 2017 outlawing police having sex with prostitutes on duty by removing an exemption that previously blocked their prosecution. Alaska State bills HB112 and SB73 propose to take legislation one step further and make it felony criminal acts for officers to have sexual contact and penetration with those they are investigating for prostitution.Conclusion:In conclusion, anti prostitution and anti trafficking laws contribute to the disenfranchisement of our community. This disenfranchisement, and a lack of public accountability in law enforcement, state agencies and nonprofits, misallocates precious taxpayer resources, as well as deterring reports from community members who have been actual victims of rape, robbery, theft, coercion, battery, assault, stalking, or murder. Continuing these failed policies based on faulty definitions is going in precisely the opposite direction to the growing global consensus on the human rights of erotic service providers and clearly puts members of our community at risk while undermining public safety.Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP)2261 Market St. #548 San Francisco, CA 94114info(AT)Sex Workers and Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project, esplerp.org, ESPLERP Legal Challenge

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Trafficking is not the same as erotic services as a profession. Anti prostitutionists and anti porn crusaders have feverishly worked to conflate trafficking with erotic services as a profession as if they are one and the same.If people genuinely care about people working in erotic entertainment or people who provide erotic services as a profession, they need to be supporting policies which protect these workers from labor exploitation or discrimination rather than trying to ‘abolish' them which is futile and profoundly destructive.The first step is to listen to what the workers themselves say about what they need and want.The following is a policy agenda developed by the erotic service provider legal education and research project:ESPLERP Policy Agenda 2018ESPLERP Policy Agenda 2018ESPLERP 2018 Policy Agenda PDFErotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) 2018 Policy AgendaThis Policy Agenda promotes a rights-based approach, whereby consenting adults in the sex industry are neither perpetrators in need of punishment nor victims in need of rescue, but rather individuals with rights and agency who deserve to be recognized as free to make their own choices about their bodies and sexual behavior.Some legislatures are already making progress in this area. For example in 2017:● the District of Columbia moved to decriminalize sex work to promote public safety and health – Promoting Public Safety and Health DRAFT● New Hampshire established a committee to study decriminalizing sex work – New Hampshire HB287 | 2017 | Regular Session.We are hopeful that this Policy Agenda serves as a roadmap both for legislators and organizations, to help them adopt internal and public policies as well as madvance incremental legislation to address the discrimination and stigmatization that affects the sex worker community in general as a result of criminalization of prostitution in specific.ESPLERP MissionThe Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) is a diverse community-based erotic service provider led group which seeks to advance sexual privacy rights through legal advocacy, education, and research. In our legal advocacy, we create change through impact litigation and policy statements. This often involves education activities for policy makers and the public. And in our research work, our evaluation tool (ESPLERP Research Evaluation Tool) helps the public and academics maintain ethically and scientifically rigorous standards.As a prime example of impact ligitation, in March 2015, ESPLERP filed a complaint with the United States Federal District Court (http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/001_Complaint.pdf), known as ESPLERP v Gascon [case 16-15027], which challenged California’s anti-prostitution law, Penal Code 647(b), arguing for the decriminalization of sex work – that these laws deprive individuals of the fundamental right to engage in consensual, private sexual activity.We have some heavy hitters on our side. Decriminalization of sex work is supported by Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, the Lancet, Human Rights Watch, and the UN Global Commission on HIV and the Law. And our case is supported by amicus briefs from over thirty civil rights and LGBTQ organizations, including the ACLU, Lamdba Legal, the Free Speech Coalition, and the Transgender Law Center – Amicus Briefs Filed In Support Of ESPLERP v Gascon.The legal process is slow and long-winded, but it is an important strand in our fight for sexual privacy. But equally, as well as being criminalized, sex workers are subject to significant social and economic stigma and discrimination. Therefore, the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) sets forth the following practical legislative steps toward enfranchising all aspects of sex work.Definitions and CommunityWe define an erotic service provider (aka sex worker) as anyone, who earns a living from their erotic labor, including prostitutes (whether working indoors in massage parlors or brothels, in their homes or on an outcall basis to homes or hotels, or outdoors on the street), exotic or burlesque dancers and strippers, adult film performers, escorts, courtesans, dominants, submissives, phone sex operators and webcam performers.Anyone who consensually engages the services of an erotic service provider, we consider a client – not a “trafficker” or an “exploiter”, and also not a “john” (a slang term that is sexist and derogatory).Directly relying for their livelihood on the jobs of erotic service providers are support staff who act in capacities such as receptionists, agents, managers, drivers, warehouse workers, security, photographers, and even janitors in adult clubs.Beyond these support staff, there are also third parties whose livelihoods rely more indirectly but often substantially upon erotic service providers, such as website owners and operators, hairdressers, makeup artists, dance club owners, gym owners and personal trainers, taxi and rideshare providers, and even hospitality industry staff who work in the hotels and other establishments used by erotic service providers and their clients.We consider part of our community anyone who is an erotic service provider or who knowingly and consensually hires, pays, or provides support to an erotic service provider, and also our friends and family members who support us (whether in a formal or informal capacity).BackgroundLegislation has too often relied upon, or been an accomplice to, the criminalization of our labor as prostitutes / sex workers. We believe that, as argued in ESPLERP v Gascon [case 16-15027], this is clearly in violation of our constitutional right to sexual privacy.Many statutes define erotic service providers as “victims”, fail to recognize the agency of erotic service providers or our clients, and fail to provide equal protection under the law for members of our community. Labeling us as victims encourages a law enforcement approach toward our community, since the presence of a “victim” implicitly assumes the existence of corresponding “perpetrators” who must be brought to justice.The state commits violence against sex workers by● harassing them – the Urban Justice Center found that 30% of street-based sex workers in New York had been threatened with violence by police officers, while 27% actually experienced violence at the hands of police – Revolving Door - Fact Sheet● arresting them — prostitution arrests are the usual means by which persons are labeled sex trafficking victims● victimizing them during incarceration (from other inmates, guards, from losing income, from being forced to work, from being away from family)● denying them access to support services, legal advocacy and safe space shelter● forcing them into state-provided or state-funded “diversion services”, which typically offer arrested sex workers the only way to avoid further prosecution● fining them, subjecting them to probation and loss of rights, and saddling them with a damaging criminal record.Anti-TraffickingLaws like the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act and California’s Proposition 35, use overly broad definitions which define our everyday personal and professional relationships as criminal associations, essentially defining our spouses, domestic partners, boyfriends and girlfriends, roommates, landlords, support staff, and others, may be prosecuted as sex traffickers and even forced to register as “sex offenders”.There are vast Federal investments in grants to “anti-trafficking” NGOs, where in collaboration with Federal and State agencies, they mount high profile prostitution sting operations under the guise of “rescue” such as Operation Cross Country (Is Operation Cross Country the Best Way to Fight Child Sex Trafficking?), which typically fail to find “traffickers”, but do criminalize consensual sex workers and their clients, and certainly do not provide services (such as counselling, housing, education) to ensnared individuals who are just trying to make a living.This slew of trafficking laws put the lives of both coerced victims and consenting erotic service providers in danger by maintaining a black market which attracts violence and creates unsafe working conditions. The cover story of the November 2015 issue of Reason Magazine accurately declares that “The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs” (The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs). In effect, the “War on Sex Trafficking” is a war on people who exchange sex for money, and primarily a war on women of color.Another major consequence of the current approach to “sex trafficking” is that law enforcement is empowered to seize property, without due process, even if the property owner is never charged with a crime. In practice, property seizure results in untraceable profit for law enforcement agencies and their non-profit collaborators. For example, the Department of Homeland Security seized $1.4 million from Rentboy.com, and we have no idea how that money was spent. The only people who do not benefit from such seizures are the sex workers on the sharp end.The narrative on sex trafficking has now expanded to include “children” – whereby everyone under 18 who is found to be involved in prostitution is automatically defined as a “trafficked victim” – per the 2003 Federal Reauthorization Trafficking Victims Act. And in addition, at the State level, “Safe Harbor Laws” are being touted as a means to recognize youth as “victims” – which implies that no charges of prostitution should result. However, both the Federal and State approaches remand underaged people into “protective custody”, where they are often held in “witness protection” until they testify against someone. Therefore laws like California SB1322 that mandates law enforcement to transfer such youth to “welfare services” actually violates youth right to due process. (SB-1322 Commercial sex acts: minors.).In contrast to this law enforcement focus, research shows that funding long term necessities for youth (safe housing, employment, education, food, and money) is a far better approach – https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Youth%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Sex%20Trade_3.pdfPrinciplesWe believe the following principles should be paramount in all legislative initiatives that affect our community.1. Nothing About Us, Without Us – When it comes to laws affecting people involved in the sex industry, the voices of those stakeholders must be heard front and center, and attitudes that “other” us and deny our agency must be excised from the legislative process.2. Our Bodies, Our Rights – Consenting adults have the right to be free from state criminalization of their sex lives, whether or not money is exchanged or any other consideration is involved.3. Individual Privacy, Institutional Transparency – Any legislation that affects our community must protect our privacy, and must guarantee that government agencies and service providers operate are held accountable for treating people humanely, non-coercively, and with integrity, dignity and respect.Policy AgendaThe criminalization of consensual sex creates a system with multiple levels of social and institutional discrimination. We therefore call for a rights-based approach which recognizes consenting adults in the sex industry as neither perpetrators in need of punishment nor victims in need of rescue, but rather individuals with rights and agency who deserve to be free to make their own choices about their bodies and their sexual relations.We therefore propose the following legislative steps toward ensuring greater safety and enfranchisement for erotic service providers.1. End discrimination against erotic service providers, clients and support staffa. Repeal moral turpitude lawsThese archaic laws limit the ability of people to gain employment after a prostitution arrest. Even non-criminalized erotic service providers such as exotic dancers, adult film performers, massage parlour staff, agency support staff, phone sex operators, professional dominatrixes/submissives and webcam performers may be negatively impacted by these laws. For example, Stacie Halas, a permanent certified teacher, was dismissed by her employer, Oxnard School District, when they learned of her previous employment in adult film – http://crypticphilosopher.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/120680877-Stacie-Halas-decision.pdf.b. Prohibit discrimination in access to publicly funded servicesIn its 2015 Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights (UPR Report of the United States of America), the State Department affirmed United Nations Recommendation #86, stating, “We agree that no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution”. But there are numerous instances of State laws and regulations that still discriminate against our community. For instance, the California Victims Compensation Fund maintains language banning those who have been injured in the course of a prostitution transaction from receiving benefits. Language singling out people who work or have worked in porngraphy and/or prostitution is another form of victim-blaming and is completely inappropriate treatment of victims of sexual assault.c. Prohibit discrimination in judicial proceedingsVery often, erotic service providers are treated unfavourably in family court hearings (for example, covering child custody and/or divorce settlements). For example, Jessica Hernandez lost custody to an abusive partner, who subsequently killed the child, because the judge disdriminated against her based on her legal occupation as a stripper – Mother of slain child blames judge for death.d. Prohibit the use of sex worker status as grounds for discriminationPeople applying to State or local government for housing, education, or employment, should not be subject to discrimination based on their occupation. But, for example, Oakland’s 2014 “nuisance ordinance” targets prostitutes, and allows for the removal of tenants due to their perceived status. Such laws place the onus on the person being discriminated against to prove that they are not a prostitute. And mean that low-income tenants, transgender residents, and people of color are targeted and made homeless.2. Grant immunity from prosecution for prostitution offences to erotic service providers and our clients and support staff when they report more serious crimesCurrent legislation discourages erotic service providers, our clients and support staff, from reporting serious crimes. For example, the excessive fines imposed by California Proposition 35 discourages reporting crimes. This provides cover to the small number of actual sex traffickers, corrupt law enforcement officers, coercive third parties, and others who prey upon erotic service providers while leaving victims and witnesses of crime exposed to penalties.3. Establish a ‘Vacatur Law’ to automatically remove prostitution convictions and arrests from criminal and public recordsA ‘Vacatur Law” should be established whereby prostitution convictions and arrests can be automatically and completely removed from criminal and public records, without requiring people with criminal records to go through a complicated, onerous and expensive legal process.4. Prohibit the possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution in arrests or prosecutionsIn many jurisdictions, law enforcement and prosecutors can use possession of condoms as evidence of prosecution. In California, AB 336 went some way toward addressing this issue, but it still left the door open for prosecutors to make special motions allowing condoms to be used as evidence.5. Prohibit gender identity, sexual orientation and racial profiling of sex workersAs the ACLU argues in its supporting amicus brief for ESPLERP v Gascon (http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/22-Brief-of-American-Civil-Liberties-Union-Foundation1.pdf), legislation criminalizing sex workers, their clients and support staff, is “discriminatorily enforced against women (transgender and cisgender) and people who are LGBTQ and gender non conforming”. Women of color, transgender women and LGBTQ youth should not have to fear being arrested for prostitution just because a law enforcement officer considers their appearance indicative of prostitution.6. Prohibit mandatory HIV testing and repeal laws that criminalize HIV positive statusWith new medical advances against HIV (such as Truvada), the current level of state coercion employed against people with compromised immune systems is inappropriate. In California, with the passing of SB 239 in 2017, knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection, is now a misdemeanor, which is the same status as other STDs. We supported SB 239, but we need legislation to go further and decriminalize HIV status altogether.7. Monitor peer counseling ‘services’ provided by anti-trafficking or anti-prostitution non-profit groups and rape crisis centers receiving public fundingAnti-trafficking groups, anti-prostitution groups and rape crisis centers in receipt of public funds should be subject to independent ethics oversight. For example, Bay Area Women Against Rape, employed in the past an older man as a peer counsellor, who in additional to providing ‘counciling to adult women, as accompanied law enforcement on anti-prostitution sting operations claiming to rescue trafficked victims, specifically minors, and then acted as a primary “peer” counselor for the “rescued” minors. This presents a clear ethical conflict. And an older man counseling a minor does not meet the definition of peer-to-peer counseling let alone women in general. Such arrangements are ripe with potential for self dealing and conflict of interest and should be subject to independent ethics oversight.8. Implement a grievance process in publicly-funded anti-prostitution/anti-trafficking groups, rape crisis centers and domestic violence sheltersNon-profits and NGOs that provide services to prostitutes or trafficking victims, in particular rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, should be required to notify all service recipients of the process by which they can file complaints about the quality of the services they receive. State records of all such complaints should be maintained and available to the public, and any non-profits or NGOs that show consistently poor user satisfaction or engage in unacceptable practices should promptly be made ineligible for public funding.9. Implement public reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies that perform prostitution and human trafficking arrests, incarcerations and convictionsCurrently law enforcement agencies and task forces that perform prostitution and human trafficking operations, arrests, incarcerations and convictions, operate with a near complete absence of transparency. For example those that are listed here in the recent new report. More than 500 arrested, dozens saved in statewide crackdown on human trafficking They should be subject to Federal, State, county or city oversight, and be required toa. make all meetings open to the publicb. publish names and roles of task force membersc. publish annual audits with all costs, including overtime pay, and any costs incurred by participating non-profitsd. publish anonymised details of arrests and convictions, together with demographic data (gender, age, race) on those who have been arrested and/or convictede. publish all Memoranda of Understanding between task forces, law enforcement agencies, non-profits or other agenciesf. implement public reporting requirements for publicly-funded non-profits and NGOs that provide services related to prostitution or human trafficking.10. Expand Privacy LawsWe require laws that protect the digital privacy of erotic service providers. The USA has signed on to the the UN Treaty on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), but there are many ways in which developments in surveillance have premptively violated our privacy.a. Stingray devices (also known as International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)-catchers) were initially developed for the military and intelligence community, but are now in widespread use by local and State law enforcement agencies, who use them to violate the privacy of erotic service providers. There is clearly a need for laws banning the use of these devices without a warrant to ensure that constitutional rights are protected.b. Our images are routinely scraped from public online ads sites and are published onto other online sites without our permission. This activity should be made criminally illegal, as erotic service providers have limited access to civil courts to pursue justice.c. We oppose license schemes that would expose erotic service providers to harassment and discrimination – such as requiring our legal names, date of birth, and social security numbers, and requiring us to submit to criminal background checks (Do licensing rules put adult entertainers at risk?). For example, a privacy watchdog in the Netherlands found that compulsory registration of sex workers breached privacy rules (http://thttp://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/08/registration-of-sex-workers-breaches-right-to-privacy-says-court/11. Protect the privacy of erotic service providers, clients, and support staff during undercover sting or surveillance operationsLaw enforcement agencies who invite journalists/media or members of nonprofits to accompany them on operations targeting the erotic service provider community should be required to inform such third parties that they are not allowed to film or record a person who is caught up in an operation, being arrested or in custody, without that individual’s consent. Such filming by “embedded” journalists and others violates our right to privacy, leads to exploitation of individuals, and stigmatizes the industry as a whole (see walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes/the-rescue-scam and Starchild’s testimony about having his rights violated during a prostitution sting operation. Starchild testimony.12. Establish regulations restricting prosecutorial misconductIt is unacceptable for prosecutors to coerce defendants in sex trafficking and prostitution cases into giving up their rights to due process and their day in court by threatening to go after them with draconian charges if they don’t accept plea bargains. There is a growing movement calling for limitations on prosecutors’ ability to force defendants to plea to charges they may not have committed. The State should establish strong penalties for such misconduct to deter prosecutors from abusing their power.13. Prohibit sexual contact by law enforcement during investigationsLaw enforcement officers and their agents should be prohibited from any sexual contact, including penetration, with anyone who is under investigation and/or in their custody or who are victims and/or . /,witnesses. Any violation should be prosecuted as a criminal sexual assault offence and restitution should be obtainable in civil courts. For example, Michigan Governor signed into law House Bill 4355 and Senate Bill 275 in 2017 outlawing police having sex with prostitutes on duty by removing an exemption that previously blocked their prosecution. Alaska State bills HB112 and SB73 propose to take legislation one step further and make it felony criminal acts for officers to have sexual contact and penetration with those they are investigating for prostitution.ConclusionIn conclusion, anti prostitution and anti trafficking laws contribute to the disenfranchisement of our community. This disenfranchisement, and a lack of public accountability in law enforcement, state agencies and nonprofits, misallocates precious taxpayer resources, as well as deterring reports from community members who have been actual victims of rape, robbery, theft, coercion, battery, assault, stalking, or murder. Continuing these failed policies based on faulty definitions is going in precisely the opposite direction to the growing global consensus on the human rights of erotic service providers and clearly puts members of our community at risk while undermining public safety.Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP)2261 Market St. #548 San Francisco, CA 94114info(AT)Sex Workers and Erotic Service Providers Legal, Educational and Research Project, esplerp(DOT)org, decriminalizesexwork(DOT)comSex Workers Consider Supreme Court Appeal After Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing on Anti-Prostitution LawESPLERP Files For A Rehearing Before Full Ninth Circuit To Continue Fight For Sexual PrivacyDonateHelp Support our Work at ESPLERP.orglpESPLERP is a 501(c) 3. Your donation is tax deductible.