Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
Shortsighted? 
The law is the law and it says NOTHING about what country or geographic location the records must be at. NOTHING.
I've got news for you, there are some of us who do play on an international playing field and the DOJ can't say shit about where I choose to do business or who is my custodian of records. It is not their job to "accept" it or not, you are allowed to operate a business in just about any country on earth and that's just the facts.
Many of us hire outsourced webmasters. Many of us travel abroad and many of us have other business besides adult, and some of those business are in fact overseas.
Again... find the part that says we can't do that and I will eat my words. This is not illegal nor am I trying to do anything illegal. I simple choose, as it is my right and yours, where my office it.
If anyone is playing games, it is the DOJ. What they don't count on is some of us understand the rules of that game and do not fear to play it. They will be more than welcome to come to that location and inspect the records, but they will have to go to that location to do it. |
my point was simple.. you are not on to something new and its not something that wasn't already addressed. if you are comfortable with playing semantics with the DOJ.. then fine. but anyone with any amount of common sense would know that putting themselves in the line of fire to test your "great idea" is stupid.
"Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled.
For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy"