Should FBI nail tube sites for 2257 none-compliance? - GoFuckYourself.com

xxxRumor · 01-18-2008, 04:02 PM

I think, Feds should come in and do something good for a change - bust a couple of tube sites for 2257 and jail a couple of them for 20 years. So other bitches would think twice before launching a new one...

Wouldn't you love a tube site owner calling and saying: i have your copyrighted vid on my site and FBI told me i have a week to get the ID's or i am fucked. And here you proudly respond: go fuck yourself!

F-U-Jimmy · 01-18-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxRumor

I think, Feds should come in and do something good for a change - bust a couple of tube sites for 2257 and jail a couple of them for 20 years. So other bitches would think twice before launching a new one...

Wouldn't you love a tube site owner calling and saying: i have your copyrighted vid on my site and FBI told me i have a week to get the ID's or i am fucked. And here you proudly respond: go fuck yourself!

If enough people reported them it could happen ?

GatorB · 01-18-2008, 04:11 PM

maybe the FBI should spend more time looking for REAL criminals breaking REAL laws.

Nookster · 01-18-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

maybe the FBI should spend more time looking for REAL criminals breaking REAL laws.

Content theft does have a real law attached to it. WTF?

StarkReality · 01-18-2008, 04:13 PM

Nice idea, but if they are located outside the US, they can give a shit on 2257 and get away with it. It's just a "local" law.

StarkReality · 01-18-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nookster

Content theft does have a real law attached to it. WTF?

Totally agreed, although I think he was referring to 2257 only.

Socks · 01-18-2008, 04:14 PM

where's minusonebit when you need him

Nookster · 01-18-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarkReality

Totally agreed, although I think he was referring to 2257 only.

Ah yea, that makes sense lol.

GatorB · 01-18-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarkReality

Totally agreed, although I think he was referring to 2257 only.

Yeah considering he suggested that the FBI bust tube sites for 2257 violations.

crockett · 01-18-2008, 04:31 PM

I'd say no.. The whole argument against 2257 is because it's burdensome and violates privacy rights. Why would we want to say it's a "usable" law to use against people we don't like, then on the other hand say we shouldn't have to comply with it.

Kevin Marx · 01-18-2008, 04:43 PM

the argument against 2257 only has a little to do with being burdensome (It's really not). The reason I get ID has less to do with age really than positively identifying a performer that I am making a contract with.

2257 is requiring you to prove that you are taking pictures (or whatever) with someone who is of legal age to do so. Laws typically aren't made to enforce you to prove that you can legally do something. If the model is 18 and you are as well, you are adults and can do what adults do without proving otherwise. It's realistically on the shoulders of enforcement agencies to prove otherwise.

I have no problem with keeping records, it's just good business sense. Realistically, I would rather DOJ inspect tube sites (for US based locales, of which there aren't many) and/or block US access to those that fall outside their jurisdiction and don't wish to provide documentation.

As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

xxxRumor · 01-18-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarkReality

Nice idea, but if they are located outside the US, they can give a shit on 2257 and get away with it. It's just a "local" law.

Yes this is true. Still busting some tube site(s) here would be a good start. I don't really care if it is 2257 or copyrighted material theft. I just think that 2257 case is the easiest for Feds to win: You have ID's? Tube owner: NO. If FBI is nice they will give them a week to comply and they are fucked. Where with copyright infringement there is DMCA in a way and it is harder to get the case going.

FBI has the time to inspect 100% compliant producers. Why not inspect a 100% criminal for a change? Content theft, 2257 who cares?

We pay shit load of taxes to the Feds. They should protect their income and do whats right and bust a tube site and "send the message".

directfiesta · 01-18-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

You must be kidding .... right ? If you don't like what comes from abroad, well get the USA to block it ( China does ... ).

How about if a " foreign " site just puts a disclaimers that it "could be illegal " to view it in the USA ....

GatorB · 01-18-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

the argument against 2257 only has a little to do with being burdensome (It's really not). The reason I get ID has less to do with age really than positively identifying a performer that I am making a contract with.

2257 is requiring you to prove that you are taking pictures (or whatever) with someone who is of legal age to do so. Laws typically aren't made to enforce you to prove that you can legally do something. If the model is 18 and you are as well, you are adults and can do what adults do without proving otherwise. It's realistically on the shoulders of enforcement agencies to prove otherwise.

The issue with 2257 is not with content producers. I see no problem with it there. It's the secondary producer clause. It's BS. There is no such thing as a secondary producer. Either one was involved with the actual production of a film or not. Why aren't convenience stores and porno shops required to have the 2257 info on the models in the magazines? Shouldn't they have to prove the girls in those pics are over 18 before they sell them?

GatorB · 01-18-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxRumor

Yes this is true. Still busting some tube site(s) here would be a good start. I don't really care if it is 2257 or copyrighted material theft. I just think that 2257 case is the easiest for Feds to win: You have ID's? Tube owner: NO. If FBI is nice they will give them a week to comply and they are fucked. Where with copyright infringement there is DMCA in a way and it is harder to get the case going.

FBI has the time to inspect 100% compliant producers. Why not inspect a 100% criminal for a change? Content theft, 2257 who cares?

We pay shit load of taxes to the Feds. They should protect their income and do whats right and bust a tube site and "send the message".

If those sites are infringing copyright the copyright owners have legal recourse for that. If they choose not to pursue it then it's really not your call to make now is it?

01-18-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

Realistically, I would rather DOJ inspect tube sites (for US based locales, of which there aren't many) and/or block US access to those that fall outside their jurisdiction and don't wish to provide documentation.

do you live in china? the DOJ should not be allowed to block anything. they are not the FCC and the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet. if the FBI can't investigate them and the DOJ can't prosecute them, then you need to bring them up on copyright infringement -which is where they are actually breaking the law.

xxxRumor · 01-18-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

If those sites are infringing copyright the copyright owners have legal recourse for that. If they choose not to pursue it then it's really not your call to make now is it?

Which tube site are you running?

You know they actually do pursue... Vivid for example

2257 by the way has nothing to do with copyright. Feds don't need a reason to inspect the tube site. They can do it at will and jail the owner for a long time.

Andiz · 01-18-2008, 05:19 PM

Who says that they are hosting the sites in the USA?

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

You must be kidding .... right ? If you don't like what comes from abroad, well get the USA to block it ( China does ... ).

How about if a " foreign " site just puts a disclaimers that it "could be illegal " to view it in the USA ....

heroin, lead based paint on toys, certain produce, certain meat products, non FDA approved medications ......... should I go on?

crockett · 01-18-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

the argument against 2257 only has a little to do with being burdensome (It's really not). The reason I get ID has less to do with age really than positively identifying a performer that I am making a contract with.

2257 is requiring you to prove that you are taking pictures (or whatever) with someone who is of legal age to do so. Laws typically aren't made to enforce you to prove that you can legally do something. If the model is 18 and you are as well, you are adults and can do what adults do without proving otherwise. It's realistically on the shoulders of enforcement agencies to prove otherwise.

I have no problem with keeping records, it's just good business sense. Realistically, I would rather DOJ inspect tube sites (for US based locales, of which there aren't many) and/or block US access to those that fall outside their jurisdiction and don't wish to provide documentation.

As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

It very well is burdensome for a secondary producer whom runs TGP's or the likes. It's pretty much impossiable for a TGP operator to be in compliance to 2257 regs the way the govt proposed.

It's not as hard on the primary producers, simply because they have accuess to the needed info.

directfiesta · 01-18-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

heroin, lead based paint on toys, certain produce, certain meat products, non FDA approved medications ......... should I go on?

The USA ( or any other country ) can block whatever they see fit. Naturally, the population could be in disagreament, as well as other countries could use reprisal ...

True, but those are actual physical ENTRIES ....

Being the devil's advocate, what about satellite feeds ???

01-18-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxRumor

Which tube site are you running?

You know they actually do pursue... Vivid for example

2257 by the way has nothing to do with copyright. Feds don't need a reason to inspect the tube site. They can do it at will and jail the owner for a long time.

exactly, if you are going to go after them, go after them for something you can go after them for.

anyone instigating 2257 investigations will have them backfire right in their face, and deservingly.

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

The USA ( or any other country ) can block whatever they see fit. Naturally, the population could be in disagreament, as well as other countries could use reprisal ...

True, but those are actual physical ENTRIES ....

Being the devil's advocate, what about satellite feeds ???

I get your point (radio free Europe comes to mind) but porn is impossible to defend in some cases and the "children" card will be played.

.

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esnem

exactly, if you are going to go after them, go after them for something you can go after them for.

anyone instigating 2257 investigations will have them backfire right in their face, and deservingly.

Well proof of age and model consent are important, stolen content or not.

directfiesta · 01-18-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I get your point (radio free Europe comes to mind) but porn is impossible to defend in some cases and the "children" card will be played.

.

I know ... But what is wrong is that the 2257 gets confused and integrated with child porn .. while it has nothing to do . Obviously, nobody of any politic stature will stand up for porn .. that would be suicide...

BTW, I kept that pic of yours with that chick sitting on you .. It was very artistic ... Nice shadows ... Nic3e composition .. Do you have 2257

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I know ... But what is wrong is that the 2257 gets confused and integrated with child porn .. while it has nothing to do . Obviously, nobody of any politic stature will stand up for porn .. that would be suicide...

BTW, I kept that pic of yours with that chick sitting on you .. It was very artistic ... Nice shadows ... Nic3e composition .. Do you have 2257

The argument is that imported products, in this case porn, have to meet the same requirements as domestically produced products.

(about the photo, thanks, I almost sent it out as a Christmas card)

Boobzooka · 01-18-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

When you visit a foreign website operated by a foreign webmaster, you are an international tourist. My

says if you can't accept all the ramifications of wandering into a foreign nation, just don't visit those countries, physically or virtually. The information isn't invading your homeland, you are inviting it. If international law worked as you are advocating, US-based webmasters would be brought up on endless charges for breaking local laws in China, Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc. Instead, for example, the US can't do anything to shut down offshore gambling sites just because an American played there; and shouldn't have any right to; they can only police their own citizens.

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DareRing

When you visit a foreign website operated by a foreign webmaster, you are an international tourist. My

says if you can't accept all the ramifications of wandering into a foreign nation, just don't visit those countries, physically or virtually. The information isn't invading your homeland, you are inviting it. If international law worked as you are advocating, US-based webmasters would be brought up on endless charges for breaking local laws in China, Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc. Instead, for example, the US can't do anything to shut down offshore gambling sites just because an American played there; and shouldn't have any right to; they can only police their own citizens.

And just how do most people know when they have clicked a foreign link? Is there a fence, customs agent ........

Kimo · 01-18-2008, 06:39 PM

fuck no

but everyone should pwn them for copyright violations

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimo

fuck no

but everyone should pwn them for copyright violations

Why not? Why should the same rules not apply to everyone?

Klen · 01-18-2008, 06:45 PM

Not sure can fbi do anything since owners of tube sites with most traffic are not from usa.

Boobzooka · 01-18-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

And just how do most people know when they have clicked a foreign link? Is there a fence, customs agent ........

That's not the foreign webmasters problem. If someone can't accept that the internet is international, maybe they could filter foreign IPs, do whois lookups in advance, only visit known locations... but now we're talking about how crazy people could solve their own self-imposed crazy problems. The sane mature thing to do would be to just accept you're part of an international community and respect that.

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DareRing

That's not the foreign webmasters problem. If someone can't accept that the internet is international, maybe they could filter foreign IPs, do whois lookups in advance, only visit known locations... but now we're talking about how crazy people could solve their own self-imposed crazy problems. The sane mature thing to do would be to just accept you're part of an international community and respect that.

That's real nice but the foreign webmaster needs to comply with US regulations when targeting US traffic. Just like foreign manufactures follow US regulations when making toys.

What makes the net so special? When used to make money, which is the case here, it's just another form of commerce. Regulated commerce.

.

directfiesta · 01-18-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

That's real nice but the foreign webmaster needs to comply with US regulations when targeting US traffic. Just like foreign manufactures follow US regulations when making toys.

What makes the net so special? When used to make money, which is the case here, it's just another form of commerce. Regulated commerce.

.

Doesn't make sense. Webmasters comply to local laws , or international laws such as copyright ( FBI-Interpol ).

The way you see it, a 19 years old US citizen entering a bar in Montreal shouldn't not be served .. and a 19 years old Canadian citizen entering a bar in Vegas should be served ....

Countries still exists ....

Boobzooka · 01-18-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

That's real nice but the foreign webmaster needs to comply with US regulations when targeting US traffic. Just like foreign manufactures follow US regulations when making toys.

What makes the net so special? When used to make money, which is the case here, it's just another form of commerce. Regulated commerce.

.

But he doesn't, legally, and insisting he should doesn't change that. He is not exporting. You are visiting a computer in another country and bringing home the data. Like if you went to Amsterdam and bought some hash; the US can't close the store there, only punish you if you bring it back here. "Targeting" is pretty damn vague and doesn't really mean anything. Even if the cafe owner has a big sign that says "Welcome Americans!", the situation is the same. Your supposition is completely unenforceable and ignores sovereignty.

brandonstills · 01-18-2008, 07:21 PM

Theft is theft. There are laws against that. Use those. Don't make 2257 any stronger than it already is and don't encourage it.

RayBonga · 01-18-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

maybe the FBI should spend more time looking for REAL criminals breaking REAL laws.

Agreed

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Doesn't make sense. Webmasters comply to local laws , or international laws such as copyright ( FBI-Interpol ).

The way you see it, a 19 years old US citizen entering a bar in Montreal shouldn't not be served .. and a 19 years old Canadian citizen entering a bar in Vegas should be served ....

Countries still exists ....

and when in Rome ............

.

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Doesn't make sense. Webmasters comply to local laws , or international laws such as copyright ( FBI-Interpol ).

The way you see it, a 19 years old US citizen entering a bar in Montreal shouldn't not be served .. and a 19 years old Canadian citizen entering a bar in Vegas should be served ....

Countries still exists ....

I don't see it that way. If I'm 19 I can't drink in the US but I can in Canada. Same for a Canadian.

If ANYONE is in China they can buy toys with lead based paint for their kids. In the US NO-ONE can.

That's pretty simple, rules of the land should apply to everyone.

.

directfiesta · 01-18-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

That's pretty simple, rules of the land should apply to everyone.

.

No. rules of the land should apply to those with boots on that land, whichever land it is ....

Pnk XXX · 01-18-2008, 07:51 PM

kill cops because cops kill

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

No. rules of the land should apply to those with boots on that land, whichever land it is ....

Or doing business in that land, like the China toy problem. If your product is sold in the US it must comply with US laws. Or don't look for money from US customers. That's as clear and fair as it gets.

pip · 01-18-2008, 09:24 PM

I Just sent xtube's info to the fbi and secret service

Matt 26z · 01-18-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

By your reasoning, the Chinese government should be able to extradite you to China and lock you up for life for working with porn sites. What do you think about that?

Matt 26z · 01-18-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxRumor

bust a couple of tube sites for 2257 and jail a couple of them for 20 years. So other bitches would think twice before launching a new one...

What about the 98% of affiliate webmasters still posting explicit material on their domains without having 2257 docs from their sponsors? Should they be imprisoned for 20 years also?

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

By your reasoning, the Chinese government should be able to extradite you to China and lock you up for life for working with porn sites. What do you think about that?

..... Good point but don't the Chinese filter their traffic?

01-18-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Well proof of age and model consent are important, stolen content or not.

if someone is going after someone else for stolen content, i would assume there was at least proof of age and consent in the production process or else it's like the dealer going to the cops when he gets his rocks jacked.

L-Pink · 01-18-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esnem

if someone is going after someone else for stolen content, i would assume there was at least proof of age and consent in the production process or else it's like the dealer going to the cops when he gets his rocks jacked.

esnem, sorry, I was referring to the tubesites other content. Seems their product is stolen or doesn't have any paperwork. How could law enforcement miss.

Marshal · 01-18-2008, 11:08 PM

tube sites are mainly hosted in USA, which means they have to be 2257 compliant...

Zango · 01-18-2008, 11:11 PM

The FBI isn't going to do shit about tube sites. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Even with the inspections, they were just there to INSPECT and give them violations if they did not have the records in order. Most didn't, they got violations, notes were made and they were given a chance to correct them. To date nobody has been arrested for not having 2257 records in order during those inspections.

01-18-2008, 04:02 PM	#1
xxxRumor Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 386	Should FBI nail tube sites for 2257 none-compliance? I think, Feds should come in and do something good for a change - bust a couple of tube sites for 2257 and jail a couple of them for 20 years. So other bitches would think twice before launching a new one... Wouldn't you love a tube site owner calling and saying: i have your copyrighted vid on my site and FBI told me i have a week to get the ID's or i am fucked. And here you proudly respond: go fuck yourself!

01-18-2008, 04:31 PM	#10
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	I'd say no.. The whole argument against 2257 is because it's burdensome and violates privacy rights. Why would we want to say it's a "usable" law to use against people we don't like, then on the other hand say we shouldn't have to comply with it. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

01-18-2008, 06:39 PM	#29
Kimo ... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Maryland ICQ:87038677 Posts: 11,542	fuck no but everyone should pwn them for copyright violations __________________ ...

01-18-2008, 07:21 PM	#36
brandonstills Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chatsworth, CA Posts: 1,964	Theft is theft. There are laws against that. Use those. Don't make 2257 any stronger than it already is and don't encourage it. __________________ Brandon Stills Industry and programming veteran [email protected] \| skype: brandonstills \| ICQ #495-171-318

01-18-2008, 11:08 PM	#49
Marshal Biz Dev and SEO Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 15,182	tube sites are mainly hosted in USA, which means they have to be 2257 compliant... __________________ --- Busy ranking websites on Google...

01-18-2008, 04:11 PM	#3
GatorB The Demon & 12clicks Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: SallyRand is a FAGGOT Posts: 18,208	maybe the FBI should spend more time looking for REAL criminals breaking REAL laws.

01-18-2008, 04:13 PM	#5
StarkReality Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42 Posts: 4,444	Nice idea, but if they are located outside the US, they can give a shit on 2257 and get away with it. It's just a "local" law.

01-18-2008, 04:14 PM	#7
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	where's minusonebit when you need him

01-18-2008, 04:43 PM	#11
Kevin Marx Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,888	the argument against 2257 only has a little to do with being burdensome (It's really not). The reason I get ID has less to do with age really than positively identifying a performer that I am making a contract with. 2257 is requiring you to prove that you are taking pictures (or whatever) with someone who is of legal age to do so. Laws typically aren't made to enforce you to prove that you can legally do something. If the model is 18 and you are as well, you are adults and can do what adults do without proving otherwise. It's realistically on the shoulders of enforcement agencies to prove otherwise. I have no problem with keeping records, it's just good business sense. Realistically, I would rather DOJ inspect tube sites (for US based locales, of which there aren't many) and/or block US access to those that fall outside their jurisdiction and don't wish to provide documentation. As I said in another thread. Our laws start at our borders. The instance that digital signal on the internet crosses into US territory, we have every right to expect the content contained within it or that it helps to compose, to be subjected to US Law. Just because it's being hosted elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that it's being viewed here. There's more to the law than the hosting locale.

01-18-2008, 05:19 PM	#18
Andiz Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,594	Who says that they are hosting the sites in the USA?

01-18-2008, 06:45 PM	#31
Klen Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Little Vienna Posts: 32,235	Not sure can fbi do anything since owners of tube sites with most traffic are not from usa.

01-18-2008, 07:51 PM	#41
Pnk XXX So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 263	kill cops because cops kill

01-18-2008, 09:24 PM	#43
pip So Fucking Banned Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Netherlands Posts: 468	I Just sent xtube's info to the fbi and secret service

01-18-2008, 11:11 PM	#50
Zango So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 511	The FBI isn't going to do shit about tube sites. Sorry to burst your bubble. Even with the inspections, they were just there to INSPECT and give them violations if they did not have the records in order. Most didn't, they got violations, notes were made and they were given a chance to correct them. To date nobody has been arrested for not having 2257 records in order during those inspections.