Why you need the 2257 documents. - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 09:15 PM

This is why.

Ukraine Model Agency Shut In Child Porn Crackdown

Quote:

KIEV, Ukraine - In what police here call part of their biggest child porn crackdown yet, a modeling agency that photographed underage girls and sold images online has been shut down, with at least fifteen people being questioned in a probe in which Ukraine law enforcement had months of help from the FBI.

Ukraine's deputy head of the Interior Ministry, Vitaly Yarema, told the country's Interfax-Ukraine news agency that the agency, whose name wasn't disclosed, attracted about 1,500 girls from ages eight to sixteen to their three offices, in Kiev, Kharkiv, and Simferopol.

Yarema said the agency would photograph the girls and then sent the images to the U.S. and Canada by way of Internet channels. Police estimated the agency earned "hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars" over the past three years, Interfax-Ukraine said.

Police reportedly froze the agency's bank accounts, confiscated video and computer equipment, images of children, financial documents, and a Porsche automobile owned by the agency's organizer, identified only as a Ukraine man in his mid-20s.

You see not everyone is as squeaky clean as you would like and listing the photographer as the Custodian will not get you off for posting porn of a 16 year old.

Scary? YES.

Spunky · 07-28-2004, 09:16 PM

True but the small percent of those scumbags fucked it up for the decent law abiding webmasters.

crockett · 07-28-2004, 09:18 PM

I don't see any issue at all in having to keep the records however I do see an issue with everyone and their brother having access to models contact info..

It's not that big of a deal to set up a good filing system, and set up a program to link everything together. But to violate a persons rights to privacy in the pretense of saving the children is a diffrent story.

just my

Phoenix · 07-28-2004, 09:26 PM

there needs to be a regulating organization

that holds all the info at a central location or something. they can assign id#'s to different girls...or sets of content or however it is best organised.

the link should be a guarantee from a custodian of records...not just any dick out there should have private info on people.

everyone will have to file with the organization, which will need copies on everything before they approve and assign a number

attach a mechanism that generates money per link or a yearly fee...and you got revenue.

Kimmykim · 07-28-2004, 09:47 PM

I'm still not understanding why people are interpreting this as if they were getting all the info. There's nothing in the documents that some very good attorneys have interpreted as requiring non blacked out copies.

Have the copies, yes. They have all agreed on that. But they can still be the blacked out copies.

I'd be curious to know who the attorneys are that some people are using and just how they are coming to interpret this.

KRL · 07-28-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
I'm still not understanding why people are interpreting this as if they were getting all the info. There's nothing in the documents that some very good attorneys have interpreted as requiring non blacked out copies.

Have the copies, yes. They have all agreed on that. But they can still be the blacked out copies.

I'd be curious to know who the attorneys are that some people are using and just how they are coming to interpret this.

In my years of dealing with attorneys, I can't recall a single time where two attorneys gave me the same opinion and interpretation. That's the problem with law, you could ask 20 attorneys the same question and get 20 different answers.

Honeyslut · 07-28-2004, 09:55 PM

I think the fuss is more about the amateur models that run their own sites and having to list themselves along with their address as the 2nd producer.

tony286 · 07-28-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
I'm still not understanding why people are interpreting this as if they were getting all the info. There's nothing in the documents that some very good attorneys have interpreted as requiring non blacked out copies.

Have the copies, yes. They have all agreed on that. But they can still be the blacked out copies.

I'd be curious to know who the attorneys are that some people are using and just how they are coming to interpret this.

I'm curious who you have spoke to about this. Blacking out information doesnt work. I have heard this from two lawyers, mine and JD at the webmaster access seminar. The people who want to protect models , what about your clients and affiliates going to jail ? IF you were selling to and signing up any warm body , why should people be put at risk of jail for that?

Print has been doing this for years. This isnt a new thing.

If it doesnt get struck down in court people are going to have be serious filtering clients and affiliates or the content business and the sponsring programs as we know will be over.

fr8 · 07-28-2004, 10:04 PM

Im glad to see that he got taken down for his cp but it sucks how it affects the industry as a hole.

darnit · 07-28-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
In my years of dealing with attorneys, I can't recall a single time where two attorneys gave me the same opinion and interpretation. That's the problem with law, you could ask 20 attorneys the same question and get 20 different answers.

Ive couldnt agree more and have been bumping into the same walls. Considering their cost you would think a simple "yes" or "no" would be in order. I was under the impression that law was black and white, not shades of grey.... guess the grey keeps the hours spend and thus the bills high

KRL · 07-28-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by darnit
Ive couldnt agree more and have been bumping into the same walls. Considering their cost you would think a simple "yes" or "no" would be in order. I was under the impression that law was black and white, not shades of grey.... guess the grey keeps the hours spend and thus the bills high

Attorneys use this technique to cover their butts. Vague protects them from a lawsuit it they give advice that turns out to be wrong.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
In my years of dealing with attorneys, I can't recall a single time where two attorneys gave me the same opinion and interpretation. That's the problem with law, you could ask 20 attorneys the same question and get 20 different answers.

Not at the moment, they are all singing the same tune.

GET THE DOCUMENTS OR TAKE DOWN THE CONTENT.

Assuming you're in the US.

tony286 · 07-28-2004, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by darnit
Ive couldnt agree more and have been bumping into the same walls. Considering their cost you would think a simple "yes" or "no" would be in order. I was under the impression that law was black and white, not shades of grey.... guess the grey keeps the hours spend and thus the bills high

the law is shades of gray for the most part. Shades of gray can save your ass. MY lawyer said alot of it is foggy and you wont know till it goes to court but you want to try to be as close to compliant as possible.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
I'm still not understanding why people are interpreting this as if they were getting all the info. There's nothing in the documents that some very good attorneys have interpreted as requiring non blacked out copies.

Have the copies, yes. They have all agreed on that. But they can still be the blacked out copies.

I'd be curious to know who the attorneys are that some people are using and just how they are coming to interpret this.

Can you imagine how it would look if the goverment tried to prosecute you for not having documents with the models home addressed blacked out?

Even the right wingers would think that over board.

tony286 · 07-28-2004, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Can you imagine how it would look if the goverment tried to prosecute you for not having documents with the models home addressed blacked out?

Even the right wingers would think that over board.

Even if you are right it still takes lots of money to go to court to fight.

iwantchixx · 07-28-2004, 10:20 PM

correct me if I am wrong, but the public won't see the documents anyways. just an address to where the docs are stored right? THAT part does bother me as I don't want surfers seeing my mailign address.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
the law is shades of gray for the most part. Shades of gray can save your ass. MY lawyer said alot of it is foggy and you wont know till it goes to court but you want to try to be as close to compliant as possible.

I think this will be struck down eventually.

Problem is who is going to pay to strike it down. Plus by then Arsehahahahaha will be back in or kicked out and won't give a dam.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by iwantchixx
correct me if I am wrong, but the public won't see the documents anyways. just an address to where the docs are stored right? THAT part does bother me as I don't want surfers seeing my mailign address.

I still think you can list the producer as the Custodian.

But you have to have the documents and are responsible.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 10:28 PM

Here's a lawyers opinion.

It's on another board Netpond, not sure if I should put a link in a invoke Lensmans wrath.

tony286 · 07-28-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
I still think you can list the producer as the Custodian.

But you have to have the documents and are responsible.

A custodian has to be a employee of your company.

Paul Markham · 07-28-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
A custodian has to be a employee of your company.

Well then that means a lot will not be here soon.

I was reading that you had to satisfy certain criteria before you could list yourself as Custodian and could not find what those criteria were.

iwantchixx · 07-28-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
I still think you can list the producer as the Custodian.

But you have to have the documents and are responsible.

The secondary producer is custodian as well with these changes right? But here is the kicker, what defines most a secondary producer in one clause also appears as some of the reasons you are exempt in another clause.

I am struggling to udnerstand what all the gray matter is, thank god my employer is consulting a lawyer about this to make sure what we have figured out is true or not.

iwantchixx · 07-28-2004, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
A custodian has to be a employee of your company.

'IF' you qualify as needing one.

I wonder though, does the employee HAVE to be an employee? Or could it be yourself?

Jonathan Quarkschowski · 07-28-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
This is why.

You see not everyone is as squeaky clean as you would like and listing the photographer as the Custodian will not get you off for posting porn of a 16 year old.

Scary? YES.

you did not read that article, did you?

07-28-2004, 09:16 PM	#2
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,944	True but the small percent of those scumbags fucked it up for the decent law abiding webmasters. __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

07-28-2004, 09:18 PM	#3
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	I don't see any issue at all in having to keep the records however I do see an issue with everyone and their brother having access to models contact info.. It's not that big of a deal to set up a good filing system, and set up a program to link everything together. But to violate a persons rights to privacy in the pretense of saving the children is a diffrent story. just my __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

07-28-2004, 09:26 PM	#4
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,462	there needs to be a regulating organization that holds all the info at a central location or something. they can assign id#'s to different girls...or sets of content or however it is best organised. the link should be a guarantee from a custodian of records...not just any dick out there should have private info on people. everyone will have to file with the organization, which will need copies on everything before they approve and assign a number attach a mechanism that generates money per link or a yearly fee...and you got revenue. __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io Last edited by Phoenix; 07-28-2004 at 09:28 PM..

07-28-2004, 09:55 PM	#7
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	I think the fuss is more about the amateur models that run their own sites and having to list themselves along with their address as the 2nd producer. __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

07-28-2004, 10:04 PM	#9
fr8 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,074	Im glad to see that he got taken down for his cp but it sucks how it affects the industry as a hole. __________________ █ joesmut (a) gmail Dot com █ Full Stack Developer

07-28-2004, 09:47 PM	#5
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	I'm still not understanding why people are interpreting this as if they were getting all the info. There's nothing in the documents that some very good attorneys have interpreted as requiring non blacked out copies. Have the copies, yes. They have all agreed on that. But they can still be the blacked out copies. I'd be curious to know who the attorneys are that some people are using and just how they are coming to interpret this.

07-28-2004, 10:20 PM	#16
iwantchixx Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Boonies Posts: 12,860	correct me if I am wrong, but the public won't see the documents anyways. just an address to where the docs are stored right? THAT part does bother me as I don't want surfers seeing my mailign address.

07-28-2004, 10:28 PM	#19
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Here's a lawyers opinion. It's on another board Netpond, not sure if I should put a link in a invoke Lensmans wrath. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70