through inaction, yes, you are in a way supporting some issue that you may be opposed.

apathy works against you. you don't like the polictical candidate choices, so you don't vote. but the fanatical people with their own agendas, will vote, so maybe someone got elected that you really don't like.

not voting, was like voting. now, if your candidate didn't have a chance of winning at all, and yet you still voted for them ( i voted for Perot), that's not throwing your vote away as many in the press have said before. No, that is action that didn't achieve the desired results.

much better then not doing anything, and not getting what you wanted.

the results may be the same, but the path you take is the real issue, so say confuscious.


-dj

We shouldn't have those things on the internet either. Stamp out Gay Porn! Maybe Spiffy can be used to detect Gay sex on the internet in Texas.

give the texas legislature time, and i am sure they will.

afterall, texas has anti-gay laws. you can have sex with a female in your own home, you can't have sex with an animal inside or outside of your home, you cannot have sex with another man.

it's on the books and the recent court testing of those laws (about gays), is in the light.

so it;s not so far fetched that texas could ban gay websites. other states have bans on p*rn, etc.

could sniffy be used for this? you don't need sniffy for that. who needs individual analysis of images to detect a gay site. only takes looking at the home page for the homophobic texas legislator to say it's gay porn.


-dj

Bullshit. It all boils down to the fact that if we don't support your ineffectual software and efforts to control, yes control, the industry based on your set of ethics and morals, then we are the bad guy. God forbid someone else should have other ideas on the subject and be taking other measures to combat this problem. Yours is not the only solution and shouldn't be touted as such. I will go so far as to say the solution presented here is even worse than inaction.

This thread contains so much rhetoric and double-talk it's just sad. Once again greed rears it's head and it's not pretty.

Seems there's a multi-screen answer for everyone counter point brought against your "solution". Nobody else seems to have a clue according to your mind set so at this point it's useless to debate further.

Good luck fleecing the sponsors. I would hope any of them that had a lick of sense could see that although CP is an immense problem, this is NOT the solution.

Who needs individual analysis of images to detect a CP site?

Good Lord...

It was by far the most un-settling time in my life. Even in my 20's, I had nerves of steal when I was running drugs between the Phillipines and Japan, to this day many friends are doing life.

Shocked huh? Wild child 25 years ago.

Anyhoo, if nothing else Sniffy can assist Sponsors in educating webmasters about risk and content if Sniffy pops a red flag.

So many webmasters are ignorant about the risks they take to make a buck in this business. We encountered this for many years when we caught up with those that stole my images.

For every hardcore image on your site, you are at risk for indictment from all US states. The prosecution comes from where the image was viewed and not always where the image was served from. We have over 322 hostile zipcodes in 22 States that could make hay any day, and it is no problem to put together a jury to convict.

Webmastes should always consider lowering their risk. The biggest mistake many make is they have no legal consultation budget, yet they budget for content and hosting.

There have been hot buttons dormant for years, one of them is "Harmful matter to children", this includes text. This is why many paysites blur their tours, to see the industry do this over the last few years is a step in the right direction.

However with making money as a webmaster, we started seeing "shock marketing" erupt in early '98. Anything and everything was used to get the attention of the surfer. It was a step backwards when the goldrush to cash in with porn was individualistic and not community. This was the first of many fractures and division in our business.

Now in 2003, not much has changed except people have realized they have to decide how much risk they want to take. Many webmasters follow the "Monkey see, Monkey do" methods assuming the monkey they role model after made the legal investment to run their site in the manner of their choosing.

Hence, worthy of copying and mimicking the methods.

Its your choice what you risk and how much. It should also be the sponsor choice to decide who they want to do business with. We simply have a tool to help them make those kinds of decisions if thats what they want to do.

Nothing else to say? I understand that.

Going back over some history:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...t=lights peed

LightSpeed took a stance, Lens took a stance, did anyone pull their business from them? If you read this thread there is some controversy but there is acceptance.

Even some comments that more is needed.

Where do we differ from the request for more sophistication in the thread above?

What do we need, and what is the solution, since some feel we are not on the right track.

If you won't go public, go private, our convo will be confidential. Talking to me by no means you endorse anything we do, how is that for a disclaimer.

lee at leenoga dot com

I need to digest this more. Think about it a bit.... but can you e-mail me the costs and more specifics so I can go over it with my partner?

thanks

-joe

My thesis although based on a webmaster being harmed does not make it completely incorrect. As they say the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Incorrect or unchecked advise can be harmfull. We are dealing with human behavior here. That means we must throw in such possibilities as greed, lazyness, stupity, personal opinions, and ethics.

Advise from a 3rd party can be just as liable as whomever uses that advise to punish someome. Let me play pretend here for a moment. Lets say I am promoting a sponsor that is using your service. They are unethical themselves (like all sponsors are ethical) and do not want to pay me for whatever reason. I get pissed about non payment since they will not answer my emails, so I come to GFY and make a drama popcorn thread about them. Facing public scrutiny, they post back saying that your program said I had their banners on a page with illegal terms. I know this is not true, yet I am now being slung through the mud publicly and your program is being used as the scape goat.

The sponsor and yourself are the only ones with the data, so either I am faced with being labeled a cheater or peddler of CP, or I fight this. I decide to fight this and take the sponsor to court. Do you think for one second your program would not be named in a suit as well? Do you think I would not get disclosure on your database for my case?

If I win or loose your database is now public record. If the courts also found that your database provided the wrong information, do you honestly think the courts would just look the other way and just say you can only get damages from the company that used the false info?

Lensman banned the world "password" as well. All of sudden now xxxpassword.com sounds immoral to me :-)


dj, I got your mail,ill reply in a bit.

This just gets worse.

"You can damn me until the cows come home, but unless you have a better solution, onward and upward."

I dont have a better solution, probably because im not looking for one. If I decided to solve a world problem it would probably be REAL Child porn, slavery, genocied, rascism, drugs, etc. Not going after penny ante webmasters that have pictures of 20 year old women with lollipopes and teddy bears.

Your logic for this entire thread has been flawed from begining to end. First and foremost you seem to think that invoking the name of ASACP is some great shield. ASCAP has lost several lawsuites in their zeal to track down and prosocute child porn. ASACP is NOT an authorized policing authority and NOT part of the government.
http://www.asacp.org/faq.html

You keep po poing the idea that your database could be used to hurt honest webmasters, disregarding the fact that a lot of what is main stream promoted is indeed illegal in a lot of places in the U.S. . Plenty of States and localities have laws against Anal Sex, oral sex, Infidelity etc. That they choose not to prosecute these things now is moot (how many places enforce seat belt laws, how many disregard them? Jaywalking? Cell phone usage in an automobile?). They can if they have the urge to, any sponsor that allows your tool to catalogue and database their affiliates is opening themselves up to possible legal action from any hick attorny or sherif wanting to make a name for themselves. A lot of you might think this is a stretch, I invite you to drive through some of the counties in texas where its still illegal to by a beer or any alcholic beverage!
Still dont believe me? Got a gay site? anal? oral? Here is a little eyeopener for any sponsors considering using this program.
14 States, Puerto Rico and the military have sodomy laws
http://www.sodomylaws.org/

Big Brother is watching is scary enough. Big brother gets paid Big bucks to squeel is terrifying to say the least.

It really is a genuine problem for sponsors Steven. As I said in another post...it isn't so much the government I am worried about when it comes to a site that is using legal images, but insinuating that they are underage...it's the credit card companies.

I have no doubt VISA would happily shut down merchant accounts that may be promoted on these sites. So genuine policing action is needed...like I also said in my past post...I TRY to do it daily with my own affiliates for this very reason.

The other aspect....which has barely been discussed, is those people who are stealing images. I spend hours and sometimes days attempting to shut down these sites or get them to remove my material, WHEN i am lucky enough to come across one.

I come across one of these sites with stolen images at least once a week.

This software would remove the tremendous burden that is put on sponsors to locate these people who are stealing their images.

As a result of this sales would improve because potential subscribers would not be able to find those images anywhere else but from people who legitimately paid for them.

I think it has major potential..and I have to thank Lee for the very public posting of what must have been some very painful times in her life in an effort to dispell some of my worries.

-joe

Originally posted by freeadultcontent



The sponsor and yourself are the only ones with the data, so either I am faced with being labeled a cheater or peddler of CP, or I fight this. I decide to fight this and take the sponsor to court. Do you think for one second your program would not be named in a suit as well? Do you think I would not get disclosure on your database for my case?


in the event of the situation you described, your attorney would subpenoa Sniffy (the 3rd party valditor) in your lawsuit against your sponsor. through discovery, sniffy would turn over to your attorney, not the database, but the screen shots of the web page infractions. the sponsor themselves, having received a qualified tip from Sniffy, would turn over whatever "evidence" they had collected to make their justifications.

It isn't liable, if it is true. If through documention, sniffy says it found CP, then it would up to the court to decide this. You are talking about an infraction that is in the criminal realm. People who give tips or leads to government officials are not liable. There are investigations done, etc. In the event that the sponsor is sued, they would provide their evidence, and sniffy would not be under a lawsuit charge.. for what? liable?

sniffy would hand over to the judge a CD with all of the website pages and images. please check this in as exhibit A.




If I win or loose your database is now public record.



public record? like you mean people will know about it? this is a public forum, people already know about the database. if you are saying that our database (the data) is now free for all to use, then you lost me on that one.




If the courts also found that your database provided the wrong information, do you honestly think the courts would just look the other way and just say you can only get damages from the company that used the false info?


actually yes, that is what i believe.

this theory of yours has already been tested in court.... some kid killed another kid. the kid said that heavy metal or rap music made him do it. mother sues the artist. court case gets dropped.

the issue of liability is with the sponsor, whether they got their information from sniffy or figured it out for themselves. having sniffy turn over discovery documents only goes to support the sponsors claim, and now leads the frivilous lawsuit towards criminal prosecution.

this is no different then if someone who didn't like you, said that you had CP images on your website, and they whispered it in the ear of a sponsor. the sponsor flips out and drops you. you, who did not have any CP, felt that you were framed, and therefore filed a lawsuit for breach of contract, wrongful termination, etc.

your attorneys get discovery information from the sponsor. the sponsor says they got a tip from someone. that person gets on the stand, credibility of the witness destroyed, the truth is revealed. who are the damages going to be accessed against? the sponsor.

sponsors have this liability anways. sniffy is an informant. if sniffy gives the red flag, then CP has been found. If we couldn't make that kind of statement, then we have no grounds for the service. CP is illegal. if CP is found, the webmaster is doing something illegal, it's that simple.

i understand the premise of your points, in saying that a webmaster could be wrongfully accused. How many people on death row say this? so we have a few, person was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but for the majority of the other cases, they were guilty.

I can understand worrying about that small percentage that might be wrongfully accused. I am sure that goes on today along with mud slinging w/o sniffy's involvement. But those kinds of public mud dragging are rarely based on hard evidence. Here i am saying that if sniffy finds CP, it will have documentable evidence, along with more than just 1 person who deemd the site was CP (and who may have been under some influence as you described), but then other levels of people to confirm, then, finally, the sponsor makes the final confirmation.

The sponsors will check the evidence, check the website, and if all comes up CP, it's CP. We are talking about black and white, no shades of gray like keywords and meta tagging that give the appearance of CP.

so i don't understand your objections to sniffy if sniffy doesn't produce false-positives, who is to be harmed? the answer, the guilty webmaster.


-dj

Comparing it to listening to a record and killing is the wrong thinking. Double check Tort law, Belli and Associates have made a huge practice out of this.

Your comparison with death row is also way out of wack. Incase you have not noticed, alot of people are actually innocent and on death row. They are just there because of incomplete information, lack of DNA testing, bad council, and not being well off enough to do a proper defense. Hence why there is a moritorium on the death sentance in a few states.

I am also one of those people that believe that even one wrong personal falsely accused or persecuted is to many. Sure there may be a greater good, but fuck the greater good if your that one person.

Originally posted by stevent37

Your logic for this entire thread has been flawed from begining to end. First and foremost you seem to think that invoking the name of ASACP is some great shield. ASCAP has lost several lawsuites in their zeal to track down and prosocute child porn. ASACP is NOT an authorized policing authority and NOT part of the government.


ASCAP does not have the authority to shut down websites. They can send letters and persuade ISP's to investigate the matter, but their best tool is to work with the FBI in handing over the evidence the collected (ie. documentation of the CP, background info on the company, etc).

The FBI then investigates (they have a department dedicated to stuff like this) and handles it from then on.

I think that you are not understanding the problem that sniffy is proposing, otherwise, you would be focusing on the possible issue, that sponsor;s don't care or need to care if their affiliates are generating traffic through CP or CP-like activities. that's the real issue, i think that you missed it thinking our premise was based on ASACP's existance.











You keep po poing the idea that your database could be used to hurt honest webmasters, disregarding the fact that a lot of what is main stream promoted is indeed illegal in a lot of places in the U.S. .





you must not be reading the posts. I infact detailed exactly how the FBI could use our database to find "obscene" material. I have acknowledged that our database could be used by the Feds, against the webmasters.

i have stated that it is not our intention to give free access to the feds, unless we are court ordered.







Big Brother is watching is scary enough. Big brother gets paid Big bucks to squeel is terrifying to say the least.


so your objection to sniffy is that it could potentially be used to detect webmasters who are conducting themselves in an illegal activity?

why are you protecting the guilty? FreeAdultContent's assertion that sniffy could be used to frame a webmaster is baseless. Hearsay and conjecture is what gets webmasters framed, based upon their peer's own pettiness, greedy, or stupidity.

if a private detective takes a picture of you banging another women that is not your wife, and your wife files for divorce, you guys are saying that you would sue the detective?

maybe you were just helping out a naked women in changing her lightbulb above her bed, and you fell on top of her, and just at that moment the detective took the picture.

that could very well be true, but your wife would have to examine the evidence in context for herself.

-dj

You seem to be avoiding the pertanint issues I have raised so i will be more specific.
Do any of us really want our sites in a database with oral, anal or gay sex by your name when some state laws specifically forbidit?

Alabama
Statute: 13A-6-65(a)(3), Sexual Misconduct
Penalty: 1 year/$2000
Classification: Misdemeanor
Restrictions: Does not apply to married couples.
3. He or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.

Kansas
Statute
21-3505 Criminal sodomy
(a) Criminal sodomy is:
(1) Sodomy between persons who are 16 or more years of age and members of the same sex or between a person and an animal;
Statute: 21-3505, Sodomy
Penalty: 6 months/$1000
Classification: Misdemeanor
Restrictions: Same-sex only

Virginia
Statute: 18.2-361, Crimes Against Nature
Penalty: 5 years
Classification: Felony
Restrictions: None
Statute
§ 18.2-361 Crimes against nature

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.


The list goes on but you get my point. Any sponsors that does sales of gay oral anal etc content better think twice before using this service. You just might find you squeeled on your self

Originally posted by freeadultcontent



Your comparison with death row is also way out of wack. Incase you have not noticed, alot of people are actually innocent and on death row.



sorry, i had to laugh at this statement.





I am also one of those people that believe that even one wrong personal falsely accused or persecuted is to many. Sure there may be a greater good, but fuck the greater good if your that one person.


i respect your viewpoint. But, sniffy does not involve itself as you are claiming, to be the one that produces the false-positive. if sniffy and its collective human team find CP, it's CP. the webmaster is doing some illegal. I am sure you are not saying that you support that webmaster's activity. But sniffy is not the judge or jury, its a source of information, a tool for the sponsor.

maybe all of this talk about liability will start to scare the sponsors in thinking sniffy might be a bad thing.... well, doing nothing is a bad thing for the sponsors, especially when it may be possible for the feds to tie back from the CP webmaster to the sponsor (ala RICO).
-dj

I am not protecting the guilty, nor do I think anyone raising such questions or concerns is. You brought this here to get feedback. You could have easily launched it without doing so, but alas you did not.

If my arguments are baseless then why in a former post say they are good questions yet legal ones. (paraphrased)

If your serious about this, and still want to make a profit from CP in one way or another for which you do. Then why not go about it the proper way and skip the sponsors all together. Market it directly to the billing companies. They are the top tier of this problem. Unless of course you do not wish to see legal troubles and it is best to drop a rung and deal with sponsors. Thus having to only deal with potential small webmasters with much smaller pockets to raise a fuse, afterall if you deal directly with the billing companies, you would risk a sponsor getting nabbed and them fighting back, which in my estimate would have a greater chance of fighting tooth and nail.

A husband and wife is not a business. Yet again with that type argument for an answer is unrelated.

you have lost me here.

Let;s say you run a website that has beastiality pics. Like the list you showed, some states, it's against the law.

sniffy comes to your site, indexes your image, and tags the images as being "adult" or "cp".

no CP was found on your website, just pics of animals and people grooving.


ok, so now what is the problem? if the feds come storming our office and slap the court order down and say, show me all the websites that have these MD5 values of known "obscene" pictures on them. so we plug the MD5 values in, and sure enough, your website come as having 8 of the images. we tell the feds, we don't judge what is obsence, just what is "adult content" (yes that is subjective to some degree), but for whatever reason, they had some law passed that gave them legal grounds to bust "obscene" pics (they tried to pass this law remember Senator McCain, didn't work out).

the FBI looks up your website and confirms that yes indeed those pics are there.

are you blaming us for having the database? so your issue is that because we have the data, we could be used against the webmaster?

the scenario is a possible one, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we are doing, it means YOU shouldn't be doing what you are doing. If you are fearful of prosecution, which you should if you are dealing in contraband, then sniffy has nothing to do with it.

a tip from some concerned web surfer could have pointed the feds to your website.

now to FreeAdultContent's point... that what if you did have those bad pics on your side a month ago, then decided that you saw the err in your ways and took them down, and then feds stormed us, etc... your URL comes up, and the timestamp shows last month was when the images were found.

the Feds check out your website, and find nothing there. now they will probablby then storm your house and servers. let's say they find nothing, so they maybe, maybe not, give you an apology and you feel totally violated.

so you don't blame the feds for their actions, you would blame sniffy because it was the "rat"????



if i have not understood your point, please direct me to it.

-dj

Feds check my website, find nothing there. Without your "service" they have no grounds for a search warrant, therefore they would not raid my house or whatnot. No harm done.

Feds check website, find nothing. Your service says something was there a month ago. Feds give your database info to judge, Judge issues warrant. Feds raid me find nothing. Yes blame the rat.

that was an analogy to illustrate my point about liability to a third party that rendered an opinion based on documentable evidence.


yes, i did say you had some good points, and i considered them based upon my opinion and current understanding of the world. you asked in a follow up message for me to give my thoughts, not an attorneys, so i did so.

you bring up a great point, about serving the billing companies instead of the sponsors. an idea that we had not considered, since the genesis of the idea was based on sponsor's problems.

the reason that we didn't consider that, is because sponsors are part of the industry. CC processors are the outsiders that do biz with adult because money is to be made, but publically distance themselves.

we weren't looking to create an internal policing force, but more of an internal/inside industry solution to sponsor's problems, as well as this industry's problem of CP tarnishing adult content.

this thread was started to see if sponsors saw having affiliate CP sites was a problem. I would say that our original question hasn't been answered by the sponsors, but has been answered by more tangential type points... all of which are great points in this spirited debate.. ...

much like you said, we could have just plowed through without evening giving a forum, but we wanted to hear the opinions.

sounds like no matter who Sniffy serves, there is still some negative feelings that sniffy is "big brother", that sniffy will "steal" webmaster's bandwidth, and that sniffy will be a potential false accuser to an innocent webmaster.

i think that sums up the negative points against sniffy, based on the posts.


-dj

I dunno, I just like to argue.
:Graucho

LN & dj - why don't you tell this straight you are doing it for profit and for power. You want to control as much as you can and you want others to credit your own goals.

The more sponsors will join this thing, the more profit you get, the more power you obtain. Don't tell me you want fight CP, the main reason you're doing it is money. If there was no money involved you wouldn't spend a minute of your time to create this thing.

Sniffivore. The business edition.

Originally posted by freeadultcontent


Feds check my website, find nothing there. Without your "service" they have no grounds for a search warrant, therefore they would not raid my house or whatnot. No harm done.

Feds check website, find nothing. Your service says something was there a month ago. Feds give your database info to judge, Judge issues warrant. Feds raid me find nothing. Yes blame the rat.






Are you suggesting that the word of Sniffy is enough evidence for the Feds to get a search warrant? no judge would give them that. just because Sniffy said bad stuff was there a month ago, is not evidence enough.

what if your neighbor reported to the Feds that they "saw" pics of "bad" stuff on your mailbox (obviously lying to frame you). The Feds drive up to your mailbox and see nothing, but since your neighbor said they saw pics there a month ago, they convince the judge based on that kind of evidence?


now, if the feds show up and indeed see the bad pics on your mailbox, then they take the pic, show the judge, judge gives them the warrant, you get busted because you were doing ILLEGAL stuff. sure you would blame the "rat" in that case since you got busted.


-dj

hehehehehe... and i like to type.

-dj

Sniffy is a for-profit business venture. if there was no money to be made, sniffy wouldn't exist. sniffy takes too much resources that only through government grant or some rich-big-wig that has lots of money that totally hated CP and was doing their philanthropist thing.

ASACP exists to rid CP, they don't make money at it, they also don't have the tech tools.

everyone may say they are against CP, but aren't doing anything about it. so is the issue that sniffy is attempting to make money at this? that's bizness, why are you putting up pics of naked people?

not sure where you are going with the power thing. this is not about power, this is about doing some good, and yes, make some $$$.. is that so wrong?

maybe the answer is we get Jerry Lewis to hold a tele-a-thon and we raise money, so that we have a non-profit organization that will do the same thing as sniffy. would that make a difference? instead of Sniffy, it would be the Jerry spider that did the searching...

....and the Jerry spider would still eat your bandwidth, falsely accuse webmasters, and give spy information to the feds.

check please.

-dj

All sponsors aren't going to use Sniffy. No big deal. We can use the sponsors that don't. It won't be too hard to figure out which ones are doing it. It'll be interesting to see which sponsors choose to conceal the fact that they're doing it too.

*Cuncur*, will be 2 man variable and you guys haven't even come close to thinking of all of them ( Believe Me). You guys better have a ton of lawyer money in the bank, and everything you own in someone else's name. Your programer better know a ton of AI, Fuzzy Logic, C and at the least have a Masters in Math. You guys are taking on some very serious cost in programing alone. I hope you know the programer or programmers very well and trust them.
Oh and computing prower, your going to need a fucking ton of it.:2 cents: :2 cents:

100% will never happen, you might get 60%, and I'll say this again hope you have some deep pockets very deep.

:Graucho

Correct

I have my thoughts on this, but will not state them on this board.

A better solution is a non-hosted system that sponsors can buy and run from their server. No need to share hard won affiliate data with anyone else.

I'd pay a few hundred for a robust stand alone solution.

Programmers?

Yes, and don't forget that chargebacks are always higher when you don't have the content the affiliate promises them. It's always good business to police the accuracy of your affiliate's sales pitch.

This is something, and maybe the only good reason to use a hosted solution. That central db might be handy. Still, I doubt it really matters. I remember the first time I was hit with a traded pw. I had so many people through my site I thought for sure there'd be a drop in sales, but no effect at all. Nope, the internet is vast, and a few scumbags with stolen images aren't enough to hit your bottom line. Still, it feels good to nail them.

Lee, why don't you break up your product into two parts: the CP spider, and the stolen content spider? That way people can hire you to uncover stolen content without sharing affiliate info with you.

Agree.:thumbsup And I really don't think it's about CP, well maybe it is, make a profit on CP. I believe very little of what they have said so far. Period.........

I also have read the whole dam thing. stevent37 add your post to freeadultcontent's post, only two worth a shit. I *WILL NOT* use a sponsor that uses this software.

Wimpy, using a stand alone system allows the IP to be indentified and blocked etc.

Sounds like the nay sayers' don't want the images looked at and hashed.

But , if there was only an intense script running, this would be more accepting? Meaning if the program found a flag, it would be human verified before reported to the sponsor.

Interesting when this software is discussed, the debate differs between the places.

You are saying if this system were centrally hosted and sponsors did not have to release sensitive data [Known URL's of their affiliates], we did not look at images, and only did a review of URL, meta, alt tags and all text would have value to the sponsors?

Sponsors?

As far as catching images, the only way that would work is if we databased bazillion of images first, were given the images you wanted us to search on.

We are building this database, have been but its no where ready to be used as a tool to catch copyrighted images.

Would be nice if content providers embedded something into their image unique, there have been services out there like BayTSP, and watermarking companies, dunno how they fared over the years.

So you nay sayers, what would you find accepting for sponsors to do without pissing you off to no end. To boycott them for wanting to evaluate what their affiliates are doing is not exactly the answer either. The pressure keeps us developing nothing as an industry, it should not be used to punish our business [new tools].

So what compromise is acceptable, how far do you think they should be allowed to go without making you feel violated, if thats even the right word?

For those that deal in sodomy and all the other areas of adult mentioned in earlier posts You can hardly get on our case if your caught. If you are going to deal in high risk content where there are known laws against it in some states, have a look at yourself first. Your rolling the dice, its fate as to whether the dice rolls "Craps" :-)

"For those that deal in sodomy and all the other areas of adult mentioned in earlier posts You can hardly get on our case if your caught. If you are going to deal in high risk content where there are known laws against it in some states, have a look at yourself first. Your rolling the dice, its fate as to whether the dice rolls "Craps" :-) "

Sodomy as defined by law is anal or oral sex. If you are aware of a major sponsor that doesnt have anal or oral sex in at least one of their sites, please tell us all who it is?

You're wasting your breath, bro. They contradict themselves every time they reply to a response.

They are checking for CP and they aren't checking for CP. They are checking all images and they aren't checking all images. They are doing it for the sponsors, they aren't doing it for the sponsors. And on and on and on...

It's like trying carry water in a sieve.... so many holes...

Lee Honey?your way off base on your approach with this sniffy thing...ASACP was started by Alec and others to be the Adult Community?s conduit for identifying and policing CP for us. They are and should be our liaison to law enforcement on this particular subject.Sponsors should not be in the business of forming their own police posses to eradicate it.We state our opposition to it..our abhorrence of it...tell affiliates in our T and C's we wont tolerate it and react when organizations like ASACP, who we financially support,and others help identify it and then more to disassociate ourselves from it. Give the software to ASACP and the FBI thats where it belongs.If ASACP wants more funds for the project I?m sure they have the outreach and bandwidth to accomplish that..I know we will support it with more financial aid.