Quote:

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.

"[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.

Quote:

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."