FSC Says: DirectNic Violating Privacy Laws, Requests Are Illegal

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • 12clicks
    Too lazy to set a custom title
    • Jan 2001
    • 19816
    #101
    Originally posted by dig420
    BAM!!!

    what more needs to be said?
    dude, soon we'll be kissing on the lips
    I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

      Comment

      • llporter
        Confirmed User
        • Jul 2005
        • 3221
        #102
        100 and something

          Comment

          • BoyAlley
            So Fucking Gay
            • Nov 2004
            • 19714
            #103
            Originally posted by 12clicks
            dude, soon we'll be kissing on the lips
            That'd be hot!

              Comment

              • Pleasurepays
                BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
                • Aug 2002
                • 11913
                #104
                Originally posted by minusonebit
                Thats good reporting? Where is the legal analysis? The caselaw? An FSC staff attorney saying something is illegal doesn't make it so. That said, I'm not sure I agree with any of the conclusions reached here. If you don't like the way your registrar does business, then go to someone else. Its not like there is a monopoly. This isnt a free speech issue, its a contract breach case between a client and a company. Get the lawyers involved, file a lawsuit if needed and be done with it.


                he said it was a violation of federal privacy laws.

                i am not an attorney... but i am wondering if thats correct. asking for proof of age ... i.e. a photo and birthdate only, i "think" is not a violation of federal privacy laws because they are not specifically asking for any personally identifiable, non public info (full name, home address, date of birth, social security number, passport number etc). it would seem quite logical that if the site owner sent all that info to DirecNIC, that he would most likely be violating federal privacy laws.

                further, i doubt that US privacy laws have any relevance at all to foreign citizens.... meaning demanding to see the ID of a Czech model or disclosing it here is perfectly legal... but if the record owner was in CZ and disclosed that info to US citizen or some organization, he would be in violation of their own privacy laws. they asked for ID's of 14 models. if those 14 models are known to not be US citizens.. then again, i would imagine that its not likely that they broke US law in asking for it ... nor would a US law be broken in disclosing it.

                that being said... demanding this info "or else", thats a different issue all together. that has nothing to do with privacy laws. after thinking about everything and if its correct that they have zero liability for a sites content, then they shouldn't be asking for anything.. much less threatening their business. if they have no liability... then they have no direct interest in policing site content. if thats true, then i would not agree at all with what happened.

                  Comment

                  • BoyAlley
                    So Fucking Gay
                    • Nov 2004
                    • 19714
                    #105
                    Originally posted by Pleasurepays
                    that being said... demanding this info "or else", thats a different issue all together. that has nothing to do with privacy laws. after thinking about everything and if its correct that they have zero liability for a sites content, then they shouldn't be asking for anything.. much less threatening their business. if they have no liability... then they have no direct interest in policing site content. if thats true, then i would not agree at all with what happened.
                    I respect the fact that you've been willing to change your opinions on things based on what's been discussed so far, and what industry attorneys have said.

                    Very stand up.

                      Comment

                      • Carrie
                        Confirmed User
                        • Apr 2002
                        • 3162
                        #106
                        An attorney gave an opinion. Whoopee. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. When a judge comes in and makes a ruling, then we'll have something to go on.

                        The attorney's *opinion* was that DirectNic had no right to investigate the claim. Sorry, but evidently research wasn't done. Slick *gave* DirectNic the right when he contracted their services and agreed to their Terms of Service.

                        If it's in your registrar's TOS, it doesn't matter if you like it or not. You agreed to it. Period.
                        Don't like it? Move to another registrar... but good luck finding one that doesn't have the same type of clause in their TOS.

                          Comment

                          Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                          Working...