UNBELIEVEABLE 2257 read (short) - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

iBanker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 2758
Share

Post
#1

UNBELIEVEABLE 2257 read (short)

05-24-2005, 10:23 AM

Sixty-two commenters commented that revealing personal information
of performers, for example, in the form of their addresses on drivers'
licenses used as identification documents in compliance with this
regulation, is an invasion of performers' privacy and could lead to
identity theft or violent crimes. Forty commenters commented that
including the names and addresses of businesses where the records at
issue are located would similarly lead to crimes against those
businesses.

The Department declines to adopt these comments.

While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against
performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of
maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited
outweighs these concerns.

www.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170
Tags: None
Basic_man

Programming King Pin

Join Date: Oct 2003

Posts: 27360
Share

Post
#2

05-24-2005, 10:24 AM

They want us to display the records, but we need to filter what we are showing ?

UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress!
Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !
Comment
AdPatron

No commissions, no fees.

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 17706
Share

Post
#3

05-24-2005, 10:25 AM

Who said this?
Comment
vvq

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 2732
Share

Post
#4

05-24-2005, 10:25 AM

Identity theft

SQUIRTING - LESBIAN SPANKING - TITTY FUCKING - WET PANTIES - MORE
We offer free hosting, your own designer (works for free), and unsaturated content for gallery and free site submitters. Just contact me! E-mail: [email protected]
Comment
Harmon

( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ)

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 20012
Share

Post
#5

05-24-2005, 10:27 AM

This shit will not hold ANY water... bookmark this thread and tell me I'm wrong. I call it

[email protected]
Comment
who

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 19593
Share

Post
#6

05-24-2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Harmon

This shit will not hold ANY water... bookmark this thread and tell me I'm wrong. I call it

I think you could be wrong. This angle will get a LOT of support.
In fact, I really hope you are wrong.
Comment
xxxdesign-net

My hips don't lie

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 10129
Share

Post
#7

05-24-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by iBanker

the necessity of
maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited
outweighs these concerns.

Not sure how the old 2257 regs werent enough..
Comment
Damian_Maxcash

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 12745
Share

Post
#8

05-24-2005, 10:31 AM

Couldnt the content producers just buy the talent a PO Box......?
Comment
iBanker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 2758
Share

Post
#9

05-24-2005, 10:32 AM

And the check this out:

Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit.

It is simpler and less burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the records to secondary producers.

SO, THE GOVERNMENT HINKS ITS EASIER AND "LESS BURDENSOME" TO HAVE ME SEND 2257 DOCS TO THOUSANDS OF AFFILIATES, RATHER THAN KEEP MY OWN RECORDS?!!

www.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170
Comment
iBanker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 2758
Share

Post
#10

05-24-2005, 10:33 AM

OH, AND BEFORE I FORGET, HERE IS THEIR VIEW ON NON-US WEBMASTERS

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.

www.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170
Comment
FunForOne

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 8704
Share

Post
#11

05-24-2005, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by iBanker

OH, AND BEFORE I FORGET, HERE IS THEIR VIEW ON NON-US WEBMASTERS

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.

That is going to shake up some people who previously excited about the gain in market share from the 2257 regulations.

My question would be how would this be enforced?
Comment
Damian_Maxcash

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 12745
Share

Post
#12

05-24-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by iBanker

OH, AND BEFORE I FORGET, HERE IS THEIR VIEW ON NON-US WEBMASTERS

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.

They would have to block access to my/other sites from US surfers..... That is something I dont think people in the US will tolerate... and is a whole big scarey thought
Comment
DWB

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 31779
Share

Post
#13

05-24-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by iBanker

OH, AND BEFORE I FORGET, HERE IS THEIR VIEW ON NON-US WEBMASTERS

In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.
Comment
xxxjay

Tube groupie.

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 13482
Share

Post
#14

05-24-2005, 10:40 AM

As far as an injuction goes, it is good that they failed to address both of these issues. It will have the FSC a lot more to dig into. I see a long, protracted legal battle ahead of the DOJ if they want to pass these regs as is.

Also, the goverment has to realize that you can fuck with almost anything in people lives and they will turn their back...look at the Patriot Act, but if you fuck with their entertainment -- that is when they get pissed off!

There could be a big backlash from all of this. I think our side of it needs to get into the mainstream media more than it has. Even most of the Bush voting crowd, as well as a lot of the people enforcing these regulations are punching the clown to internet porn in private.

http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/
Comment
iBanker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 2758
Share

Post
#15

05-24-2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by FunForOne

That is going to shake up some people who previously excited about the gain in market share from the 2257 regulations.

My question would be how would this be enforced?

Simple....dont let processors in the US process their transactions.

www.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170
Comment
SteveLightspeed

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 7940
Share

Post
#16

05-24-2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by xxxjay

As far as an injuction goes, it is good that they failed to address both of these issues. It will have the FSC a lot more to dig into. I see a long, protracted legal battle ahead of the DOJ if they want to pass these regs as is.

You hit the nail on the head xxxjay! When the first model is stalked and killed because we were forced to give out her home address, this law is going to find itself in a shitstorm of controversy.

Steve Lightspeed

Abra-cadabra!
Comment
ronaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 5475
Share

Post
#17

05-24-2005, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Lightspeed

You hit the nail on the head xxxjay! When the first model is stalked and killed because we were forced to give out her home address, this law is going to find itself in a shitstorm of controversy.

Steve Lightspeed

I"d like to agree with you, but I think they'll state as they have, "While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited outweighs these concerns."
Comment
MrJackMeHoff

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 4569
Share

Post
#18

05-24-2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by ronaldo

I"d like to agree with you, but I think they'll state as they have, "While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited outweighs these concerns."

This is just an insane way of thinking!?
Comment
fireorange

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2005

Posts: 1648
Share

Post
#19

05-24-2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by iBanker

Simple....dont let processors in the US process their transactions.

What about online casinos RIGHT NOW?
Comment
SteveLightspeed

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 7940
Share

Post
#20

05-24-2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by ronaldo

I"d like to agree with you, but I think they'll state as they have, "While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited outweighs these concerns."

Unless performing in adult content is made illegal, how can the government justify protecting minors by jeopardizing performers? Put me down for a fight on this one. Its wrong.

Steve Lightspeed

Abra-cadabra!
Comment
ronaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 5475
Share

Post
#21

05-24-2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff

This is just an insane way of thinking!?

Insane? Agreed.

Thinking? You use that term loosely.

Surprising? Not in the least considering who's in office and their ultimate goal.
Comment
MandyBlake

The one and only!

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 17761
Share

Post
#22

05-24-2005, 11:47 AM

it all sucks. we'll see how far the free speech coaltion can get.

Mandy's Playhouse
Her First Fat Girl
If you're interested in promoting my sites, ICQ me! 178411921
Comment
Amputate Your Head

There can be only one

Join Date: Aug 2001

Posts: 39075
Share

Post
#23

05-24-2005, 11:48 AM

All this shit makes me shake my head and sigh....

it's very similar to gun laws. The people that are breaking the laws, you know... the criminals.... they don't give a shit about the laws. All they accomplish by passing all this nonsense is make it harder on the people trying to follow the laws. Thousands of notarized affidavits and shit? Come on... the fuckin' criminals don't give a fuck about any of that. The CP peddlers are not trying to sneak through some half-assed fabricated documentation that, now with the NEW regs, could possibly be detected by some sleuth DOJ agent.

Our government at work once again.... fucking things up for the honest people, and doing NOTHING to slow down the criminals.

SIG TOO BIG
Comment
ronaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 5475
Share

Post
#24

05-24-2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Lightspeed

Unless performing in adult content is made illegal, how can the government justify protecting minors by jeopardizing performers? Put me down for a fight on this one. Its wrong.

Steve Lightspeed

Steve, I agree with you 100%.

This administration has already shown their utter disregard for it's performers though.

Who was it, and exactly what was said a couple of years ago? Something along the lines of, "Why would we give a shit what happens to a webcam girl?"

That isn't the exact quote, but it's along the lines. If someone has it handy, and who said it, I'd be curious to see it again. I'm thinking Ashcroft, but that may be TOO obvious.
Comment
ronaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 5475
Share

Post
#25

05-24-2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Amputate Your Head

All this shit makes me shake my head and sigh....

it's very similar to gun laws. The people that are breaking the laws, you know... the criminals.... they don't give a shit about the laws. All they accomplish by passing all this nonsense is make it harder on the people trying to follow the laws. Thousands of notarized affidavits and shit? Come on... the fuckin' criminals don't give a fuck about any of that. The CP peddlers are not trying to sneak through some half-assed fabricated documentation that, now with the NEW regs, could possibly be detected by some sleuth DOJ agent.

Our government at work once again.... fucking things up for the honest people, and doing NOTHING to slow down the criminals.

Very well said
Comment
chadglni

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 6924
Share

Post
#26

05-24-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Lightspeed

You hit the nail on the head xxxjay! When the first model is stalked and killed because we were forced to give out her home address, this law is going to find itself in a shitstorm of controversy.

Steve Lightspeed

Damn, I can get Jordans real name and address now? woohoo!

Seriously though Steve, that shit blows. Hopefully this will be tied up long enough for you and all your models to retire.

Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program
Comment
warlock5

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 2808
Share

Post
#27

05-24-2005, 11:59 AM

This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with turning everyone involved in the adult industry into criminals. It will backfire on them just like prohibition and the drug war.
Comment
Adam-EB

Confirmed User

Join Date: Mar 2004

Posts: 393
Share

Post
#28

05-24-2005, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by iBanker

And the check this out:

Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit.

It is simpler and less burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the records to secondary producers.

SO, THE GOVERNMENT HINKS ITS EASIER AND "LESS BURDENSOME" TO HAVE ME SEND 2257 DOCS TO THOUSANDS OF AFFILIATES, RATHER THAN KEEP MY OWN RECORDS?!!

I wondered about this one as well. What if the primary producer wants to, or doesn't mind sanitizing the records? They seem to disregard this comment because of the overburden on producers, so if we feel it's not a burden, can we still proceed with marking out addresses from the ID's?

SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Comment
andrej_NDC

Registered User

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 7760
Share

Post
#29

05-24-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by xxxdesign-net

Not sure how the old 2257 regs werent enough..

not? the old regs were against child porn, the new ones are against porn at all
Comment
TheLegacy

SEO RobertWarrenSEO.com

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 18097
Share

Post
#30

05-24-2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by warlock5

This has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with turning everyone involved in the adult industry into criminals. It will backfire on them just like prohibition and the drug war.

exactly - it is meant to harass and group the adult community into the same as those who produce CP. How will it stop cp? it wont. It will however force some out of business and many to the brink locked up in paper work and court proceedings.

RobertWarrenSEO.com
Telegram: @TheLegacy54
Comment
TheSenator

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 13340
Share

Post
#31

05-24-2005, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by chadglni

Damn, I can get Jordans real name and address now? woohoo!

Seriously though Steve, that shit blows. Hopefully this will be tied up long enough for you and all your models to retire.

I guess all the famous Internet models....like Misty Anderson, Kate's Playground, Tiffany, Megan OT, Nikki, Blue Eyes, Seanna Teen and other teen models would have to give their affiliates copies of all IDs required by the law.

We need to protect these women(Internet models) from predator.

ooo....showing girls in thongs is obscene in certain communities in the US.

ISeekGirls.com since 2005
Comment
Diligent

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 1594
Share

Post
#32

05-24-2005, 12:23 PM

OMG..

I'm not living in the states but I still have the words "must assasinate {insert a few names}" ringing inside my head...
Contrary to what many "offshore" people believe now, this tyrannny will affect us ALL..!

Goddam morons & assholes You have running the show over there!

~¤~ MORE MONEY ~¤~ VOD? XoD! ~¤~
~¤~ ICQ# 9828 2461 ~¤~
Comment
pstation

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 1135
Share

Post
#33

05-24-2005, 12:27 PM

that's what you greedy bastards get for not make large contributions bush's presidential campaign
Comment
undermyspell

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 875
Share

Post
#34

05-24-2005, 01:04 PM

My only comment on this is can you imagine what would happen if everyone got hold of Jenna Jameson's home address??? The stalkings would be mind boggling
Comment
SiMpLe

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 3221
Share

Post
#35

05-24-2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by iBanker

Sixty-two commenters commented that revealing personal information
of performers, for example, in the form of their addresses on drivers'
licenses used as identification documents in compliance with this
regulation, is an invasion of performers' privacy and could lead to
identity theft or violent crimes. Forty commenters commented that
including the names and addresses of businesses where the records at
issue are located would similarly lead to crimes against those
businesses.

The Department declines to adopt these comments.

While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against
performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of
maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited
outweighs these concerns.

I think thats fucked too - Stalkers are tickled about it.

Sean Holland
Vice President
OrbitalPay / Global Electronic Technology (GET)
SKYPE: iam.sean ::: sholland at orbitalpay.com
888-775-1500
Comment
iBanker

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 2758
Share

Post
#36

05-24-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by SiMpLe

I think thats fucked too - Stalkers are tickled about it.

Of course they are, the DOJ want sto do everything but give them the keys to their front door it seems.

www.JasonandAlex.com
Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170
Comment
xxxjay

Tube groupie.

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 13482
Share

Post
#37

05-24-2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by ronaldo

I"d like to agree with you, but I think they'll state as they have, "While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited outweighs these concerns."

That is exactly the kind of duplicity that will give lawyers room to fight:

1. It's legal to work as a model in the adult industry.
2. It legal to be under 18 as well.

It is clear that the DOJ doesn't even think of the people in group #1 and that is what they are. They deserve the same protection as the kids do...and we all know this isn't about CP anyway. CP is just convient high moral ground for the DOJ to stand on when the try to prosectute 2257.

http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/
Comment
goBigtime

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 7761
Share

Post
#38

05-24-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by ronaldo

I"d like to agree with you, but I think they'll state as they have, "While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited outweighs these concerns."

The bottom line is there are reasonable ways to accomplish what DOJ says it wants there, while not compromising the models real information from the primary producer. An underage child and a 20-something model are still citizens and have the same rights to privacy, no?

Last edited by goBigtime; 05-24-2005, 02:21 PM.
Comment
ronaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 5475
Share

Post
#39

05-24-2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by goBigtime

The bottom line is there are reasonable ways to accomplish what DOJ says it wants there, while not compromising the models real information from the primary producer. An underage child and a 20-something model are still citizens and have the same rights to privacy, no?

Hey, I agree with both you and Jay.

I'm just quoting what the Government has stated. Not me.

But, I'M also a RATIONAL individual.

That's NOT who we're dealing with here obviously.
Comment
ronaldo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 5475
Share

Post
#40

05-24-2005, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by xxxjay

That is exactly the kind of duplicity that will give lawyers room to fight:

1. It's legal to work as a model in the adult industry.
2. It legal to be under 18 as well.

It is clear that the DOJ doesn't even think of the people in group #1 and that is what they are. They deserve the same protection as the kids do...and we all know this isn't about CP anyway. CP is just convient high moral ground for the DOJ to stand on when the try to prosectute 2257.

I've been saying this for a LONG time man.

This entire law is under the "Guise" of defending our children. Nothing more.

My feeling is when someone goes to court and can provide any and all documentation to prove that someone is over 18 and SHOW that we're not in the business of dealing with CP, this law will ultimately collapse.

They're trying to make criminals out of us for nothing more than bad record keeping. Why? Because they KNOW we don't deal in CP. Why change the laws? Because they know we're following the laws AS THEY ARE TODAY.

Read Amp's post above. That's exactly what's going on. They're not focusing on the CP problem they claim to be after, NOR the REAL criminals. They're focusing on LAW ABIDING pornographers (lol, that does sound kind of funny). Now, they're just changing the laws to make it harder to abide by the laws.
Comment
Damian_Maxcash

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 12745
Share

Post
#41

05-24-2005, 02:39 PM

Would it have to be a home address... could the producers get boxes for the talent?

I take you can have a DL delivered to a PO Box?
Comment
FilthyRob

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 6741
Share

Post
#42

05-24-2005, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by damian2001

Would it have to be a home address... could the producers get boxes for the talent?

I take you can have a DL delivered to a PO Box?

I HAD my dmv address as my PO Box address for a long time. When I just did my annual DMV stuff, they made me use a physical address this time.

There are even sponsors that want affiliates real addresses as well. Saying PO Boxes are havens for cheaters. I know this wasn't part of the issue, just wanted to say it.

AKA - Clubsexy
Comment
Joesho

want to get in shape

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 12329
Share

Post
#43

05-24-2005, 03:03 PM

I have some solution options, but will only discuss them on an individual basis.

if you are interested please feel free to hit me up 174842541

Got any domains to sell?
I proudly host all my stuff at www.rackco.com
Comment
kernelpanic

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Jan 2005

Posts: 2961
Share

Post
#44

05-24-2005, 03:07 PM

I hate this shit so much....as a smaller operator, I don't know how I could comply. It'd probably run me out of the industry.

ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h.
$.40 Per Install - No Tier
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...