When was the last 2257 record inspection?

[videosc]

I know that not all 2257 record inspections are made public but it seems like I used to hear about them on forums like this and as far as I recall there have been no inspections mentioned for several years. Can anyone remember the last time they heard about a 2257 inspection?

Has the government finally moved on to more important things? Or are inspections due to make a big comeback the next time an anti-porn administration is in charge?

If I were ever to be inspected I wish I was rich enough to take the government to court so I could make a case to a jury that thousands of tube sites get away without any record keeping requirements so why should original content producers be the only ones who are forced to obey the law? I know the "other people get away with it" legal defense is a lost cause, but still, its the principle of the thing!

[Barry-xlovecam]

in 2007 when AG Gonzales resigned, the economy collapsed and no one gave a shit?

Here's a better question -- How may child porn charges did §2257 inspections result in?

[Brent 3dSexCash]

fbi watches this forum. next inspection: tomorrow.

[GetSCORECash]

Laws are written by very old men in senate building are not enforced by fbi or police. Once the laws are on the book, they are never removed.

To answer your question, I believe Isac mentioned on xbiz that in 2007 they tried charging him on violations of 2257 but later drop the charges.

[pornlaw]

To my knowledge Joe Francis was the only person ever charged under 2257 and he pled out and paid a fine...

(Isaacs was but then the first Connections decision finding 2257 unconstitutional in the Sixth Circuit forced the US Attorney to drop the charges against him)

http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-l...-section-2257/

[Jakez]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Here's a better question -- How may child porn charges did §2257 inspections result in?

Good question.

[martinsc]

Originally Posted by Jakez

Good question.

[mikesouth]

Ray Guhn also got 2257 charges.

[Qbert]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Ray Guhn also got 2257 charges.

Are you sure about that Mike? That case was State of Florida, not Federal.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by GetSCORECash

Laws are written by very old men in senate building are not enforced by fbi or police. Once the laws are on the book, they are never removed.

To answer your question, I believe Isac mentioned on xbiz that in 2007 they tried charging him on violations of 2257 but later drop the charges.

If someone like Score doesn't know, then it's not worth bothering to find out. Score I know are tops at complying to and above 2257 requirements.

It's a shame that the Government thinks only inside it's little box all the time. IMO there's no excuse for not enforcing a law that requires documentation of models in porn, regardless of ages. Simply as a privacy law it should be required.

Think from the perspective of complying doesn't harm your income and protects other peoples rights. Before you argue with this.

[xenigo]

A group of 5 crazy roided-out police officers did the "cop knock" on my door once. They didn't know what the fuck USC 18 Section 2257 was. They asked for "contracts". I handed over my records anyway so they could "inspect" them. They all just looked at each other with sincere confusion... clearly they had no idea what they were doing.

And after about an hour of listening to these asshole punks scream at me, they left. And I didn't get arrested.

Apparently their philosophy is that if they yell loud enough, what I do becomes illegal.

[Markul]

Originally Posted by xenigo

A group of 5 crazy roided-out police officers did the "cop knock" on my door once. They didn't know what the fuck USC 18 Section 2257 was. They asked for "contracts". I handed over my records anyway so they could "inspect" them. They all just looked at each other with sincere confusion... clearly they had no idea what they were doing.

And after about an hour of listening to these asshole punks scream at me, they left. And I didn't get arrested.

Apparently their philosophy is that if they yell loud enough, what I do becomes illegal.

Thats kind of funny... You should've offered them a role in some gay scene

[nextri]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If someone like Score doesn't know, then it's not worth bothering to find out. Score I know are tops at complying to and above 2257 requirements.

It's a shame that the Government thinks only inside it's little box all the time. IMO there's no excuse for not enforcing a law that requires documentation of models in porn, regardless of ages. Simply as a privacy law it should be required.

Think from the perspective of complying doesn't harm your income and protects other peoples rights. Before you argue with this.

Although there should be age verification to make sure people are of age when making content, it does also have some negative consequences imo.

Anyone can buy content. And anyone who buys content get a copy of the girls ID with name, and social security information that will easily let you find out where the person lives. I find that very disturbing and unsafe for the girls that they have no idea who will end up with a copy of their drivers license and basically a map to their house.
And even though after I've bought content, and have the girls ID and a model release form, how would anyone know that the model release is for the exact images I got?

I don't really see any alternative ways to go about this, just wanted to state that I think it's a bit fucked up the way it works.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by Markul

Thats kind of funny... You should've offered them a role in some gay scene

Yeah, it was interesting explaining to them how the first amendment works... in regards to my rights to photograph naked people. They accused me of all sorts of crazy stuff, to which I answered "No... you are definitely mistaken. No laws have been broken. I operate in strict compliance with all laws both locally and federally. My business is protected by the US Supreme Court, and the First Amendment." I think I repeated that about 20 times.

Apparently when all else fails, they resort to childish intimidation tactics.

[DWB]

I had US customs go through my records a couple of years ago when I flew into LAX with several hard drives full of content. They went through every folder, every photo, every video, checked every ID, and looked at every contract. It was mostly shemale content so as time consuming as it was I found joy in watching them have look at it.

And then of course Epoch likes to pretend they are law enforcement from time to time and ask for unredacted 2257 on models.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by xenigo

A group of 5 crazy roided-out police officers did the "cop knock" on my door once. They didn't know what the fuck USC 18 Section 2257 was. They asked for "contracts". I handed over my records anyway so they could "inspect" them. They all just looked at each other with sincere confusion... clearly they had no idea what they were doing.

And after about an hour of listening to these asshole punks scream at me, they left. And I didn't get arrested.

Apparently their philosophy is that if they yell loud enough, what I do becomes illegal.

You're lucky they didn't charge you with something silly like interfering with an investigation, just so they could arrest you.

[Dirty Dane]

It was never meant to protect kids but to make running legal adult business in US more difficult.

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by DWB

I had US customs go through my records a couple of years ago when I flew into LAX with several hard drives full of content. They went through every folder, every photo, every video, checked every ID, and looked at every contract. It was mostly shemale content so as time consuming as it was I found joy in watching them have look at it.

And then of course Epoch likes to pretend they are law enforcement from time to time and ask for unredacted 2257 on models.

Much easier to just send yourself the hard drives...

[tony286]

Years back I spoke with someone who got checked. He said they looked like insurance salesmen very polite. Told him the things to fix and came back to check it and that was it.

[AllAboutCams]

some funny reading

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Ray Guhn also got 2257 charges.

No, he didn't.

Guhn was charged with obscenity, promoting prostitution, a couple of drug-related charges, racketeering and money laundering.

As I recall, the initial charges (brought by Escambia County) were racketeering, enterprise prostitution and production/sale of obscene material. The charges were later dropped in Escambia and reentered in Santa Rosa County, at which time they added the money laundering charge.

He eventually copped a plea relating to unlawful financial transactions, but avoided an obscenity conviction in the bargain.

At no point was he charged with 2257 violations. I'm not sure where Mike got the idea that 2257 was a part of it all, but that's false.

[mafia_man]

Originally Posted by DWB

I had US customs go through my records a couple of years ago when I flew into LAX with several hard drives full of content. They went through every folder, every photo, every video, checked every ID, and looked at every contract. It was mostly shemale content so as time consuming as it was I found joy in watching them have look at it.

And then of course Epoch likes to pretend they are law enforcement from time to time and ask for unredacted 2257 on models.

Remind me to Truecrypt my hard drive before going to the US.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Quentin

No, he didn't.

Guhn was charged with obscenity, promoting prostitution, a couple of drug-related charges, racketeering and money laundering.

As I recall, the initial charges (brought by Escambia County) were racketeering, enterprise prostitution and production/sale of obscene material. The charges were later dropped in Escambia and reentered in Santa Rosa County, at which time they added the money laundering charge.

He eventually copped a plea relating to unlawful financial transactions, but avoided an obscenity conviction in the bargain.

At no point was he charged with 2257 violations. I'm not sure where Mike got the idea that 2257 was a part of it all, but that's false.

I thought I read that he plead out to 2257 violations My memory must be failing me...fuck I didnt think I was that old...

[CYF]

Originally Posted by mafia_man

Remind me to Truecrypt my hard drive before going to the US.

better off using FedEx or just ftp it

[mafia_man]

Originally Posted by CYF

better off using FedEx or just ftp it

FedEx it to where? The hotel?

Truecrypt it with hidden partition so they can boot it up and nose round on an empty OS installation if they want.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Much easier to just send yourself the hard drives...

That was the first and last time I ever traveled with them. There were too many too ship on this occasion, and they were all large external drives.

Originally Posted by mafia_man

Remind me to Truecrypt my hard drive before going to the US.

If they can tell it's encrypted they will have you unlock it or they will seize your machine. The guys who do the computer searches are pretty tech savvy and are power tripping massively. Better to not have any porn at all on your machine. Now I travel with a 100% clean net book and remote access my files, just in case. It's not worth the hassle.

[videosc]

Thanks for all the feedback. So it sounds like there has not been a 2257 inspection in 5 years, at least as far as we know.

I do wonder (hope?) if the feds ever start these up again that they will go after tube sites first.

[CYF]

Originally Posted by mafia_man

FedEx it to where? The hotel?

Yes. Call ahead and tell them to expect a package for you.

Otherwise travel through borders with a clean computer and access whatever you need remotely.

[InfoGuy]

Originally Posted by videosc

If I were ever to be inspected I wish I was rich enough to take the government to court so I could make a case to a jury that thousands of tube sites get away without any record keeping requirements so why should original content producers be the only ones who are forced to obey the law? I know the "other people get away with it" legal defense is a lost cause, but still, its the principle of the thing!

Forget the tubes, look at Google Images. They have billions of porn pics without 2257 records. And I'm sure that out of those billions of images, just due to sheer numbers, there are some pics of CP. Apparently, adhering to the "secondary producer" requirement in 28 CFR 18 means zip to Google.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by nextri

Although there should be age verification to make sure people are of age when making content, it does also have some negative consequences imo.

Anyone can buy content. And anyone who buys content get a copy of the girls ID with name, and social security information that will easily let you find out where the person lives. I find that very disturbing and unsafe for the girls that they have no idea who will end up with a copy of their drivers license and basically a map to their house.
And even though after I've bought content, and have the girls ID and a model release form, how would anyone know that the model release is for the exact images I got?

I don't really see any alternative ways to go about this, just wanted to state that I think it's a bit fucked up the way it works.

28 CFR 75.2 - Maintenance of records.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/75/2

(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in § 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in § 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records. The copies of the records may be redacted to eliminate non-essential information, including addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and other information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer. However, the identification number of the picture identification card presented to confirm the name and age may not be redacted.

"[j]ust wanted to state that I think it's a bit fucked up the way it works." -- that is not how the code is enforced. Redacted means 'censored out' with a black magic marker -- this applies to the records given to any secondary producer. Don't misunderstand me, I am not stipulating (agreeing to) the constitutionally of 18 USC §2257 or especially §2257A. Its issues are repeatedly litigated with conflicting result and will continue to be until the US Supreme Court grants Certiorari and rules on the facts of the law's constitutionality.

Originally Posted by InfoGuy

Forget the tubes, look at Google Images. They have billions of porn pics without 2257 records. And I'm sure that out of those billions of images, just due to sheer numbers, there are some pics of CP. Apparently, adhering to the "secondary producer" requirement in 28 CFR 18 means zip to Google.

Google Images asserts safe harbor from §2257 claiming that they do not produce any sexually explicit content only creating thumbnails of the content produced by others. Further asserting that their image index is produced by a computer generated program, i.e.; "the algorithm" they lack any mens ria (guilty mind) or culpability in reproducing the works of others much as the principle that the library is not responsible for every book's contents.

The US 6th Circuit Appeals Court, hearing en blanc also found that images of adults emailed, that were sexually explicit, as example in non commercial purpose were not to be enforced to the terms of §2257. This seems to be in conflict with the law's reading as there is no non-commercial use exemption -- this conclusion was reached on the USDOJ's guidelines for §2257's enforcement by the department ...

Bottom line, this law, §2257, has been rewritten to avoid the constitutional issues many times since its inception during the Regan Administration and its political motives are obvious.

§2257 is not being seriously pursued at this time for reason of the litigation pending and the current administration's preoccupation with more pressing legal interests than hassling the porn industry to pacify a constituency screaming "save the children."