I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic If They Don't...
 

I Will Organize A Boycott Of DirectNic.
This post is long and serious, $postcount++; need not bother with this thread.


I like to consider myself a fair minded individual, and tend not to take things too seriously that don't deserve the attention. But the more I think about this particular incident, the more upset I'm getting.

As a strong proponent for first amendment rights, recent actions by DirectNic raise serious concern with me about maintaining the free and open exchange of information on the internet. THAT is serious enough of a cause for me to pay some time and attention to.

For those of you that haven't read the thread, DirectNic recently DEMANDED to see confidential 2257 documentation for ALL models appearing on the websites of an individual that was running TGPs on them. These personal identification documents, which are required to be kept by federal law, are by statute only to be inspected by the Attorney General of the United States of America, or his designee. The Attorney General has publicly chosen the Federal Bureau of Investigations as said designee.

For a third party company such as DirectNic to demand to see those personally identifying documents, including drivers licenses, is wrong. Period!

The significance of this particular incident are of little concern to me compared to the broader scope and consequences of such a policy being in place.

DirectNic is holding this individual's domains hostage, putting a lock on them so that he can't even transfer them to a different registrar. If DirectNic were no longer comfortable being the registrar of record for these domains, they should allow this individual to transfer them. If DirectNic believes that illegal material is contained on these domains, they should notify his host, the proper authorities, and appropriate third party advocacy groups.

Registrars are not legal authorities, and they are not the internet police.

If there is a concern about the nature of specific content, the legal governmental authorities have the ability to institute an investigation to determine if any laws are being broken, or if anyone is being victimized.

Registrars should NOT under ANY circumstances put an individual in the position of choosing to either 1 lose their domains and significant business, or 2 release personal information about scores of individuals, potentially breaking numerous privacy laws in the process.

Our rights to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy of tens of thousands of individuals, are at odds with this policy. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.

If it doesn't, I am personally willing to put forth considerable time and resources to make sure that the entire adult entertainment industry, and other industries and organizations that take a stand for freedom of speech and exchange of information on the internet, are notified about this policy.

I will also call for a full and complete boycott of DirectNic and will work with other registrars to find appropriate alternatives for individuals to transfer their domains to, and register new domains with.

I ask others that are advocates of freedom of speech, and personal privacy, to take a stand with me.

sig spot... while I read all that... :)

Like I said before, when he turns off the yellow... it's serious business.

postcount++;

i have my left hand on my nuts now

Mike said he was going to investigate what happened and help resolve the issue. Why don't you wait and see what happens?

The sky isn't falling.

This thread makes my nuts itch

Really scary stuff indeed...

Are we sure it's their policy? Maybe it's simply a misinformed employee? Someone who jumped the gun a little early?

I understand. Though I have yet to see what their actual policy is. Mike hasn't posted it. I haven't seen it posted off of their site. What is the policy we're criticizing here?

Nobody even knows what happened. An employee could have made a mistake. Or there could be another error somewhere else.

The only thing we know is Slick had his domain locked. I would find it hard to believe that Slick had anything illegal going on, but the only thing we know about the issue right now is what Slick has relayed. Hell, Mike doesn't even know!

If its a mistake, you're dragging an innocent company through the mud for nothing.

I'm not dragging anyone through the mud. This is the e-mail that Slick claims to have received, and at this point, I see no reason to believe it's not genuine:


Is that, or is that not, an employee of DirectNic demanding to see personal and private documents of dozens (hundreds?) of individuals?

Is that or is that not an employee of DirectNic telling the site owner that if such private documents are not turned over to them, that they will shut down his domains?

We're not talking about some PR person making a misstatement of policy something similar. Obviously someone of authority enough to put a lock on his domains was involved.

Oh, and by the way, I just had somebody message me asking what I thought about this thread. They wanted to know if they should switch registrars and where they should switch to.

Heh.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

way to go BoyAlley!

thank you

And before someone chimes in "think of the children" I want to make one thing VERY clear:

I have ZERO tolerance for CP, nor the sick individuals responsible for its creation. I have in the past worked with individuals from the FBI's Innocent Images Divisions, and have even lectured in front of them teaching them techniques to help track down these individuals, and provided technology to aid them in doing so.

That being said, FBI is the appropriate organization to handle such investigations, NOT registrars.

Having private companies play the role of law enforcement, and demand to examine private identification documents, is a VERY bad thing, for both freedom of speech, personal privacy, AND the hunt for and conviction of producers of CP.

Boy Alley,

I am with Sly on this one, at least wait and see what Mike has too say.. He's been in our industry online almost as long as I have..

On the Merits, I agree with you and others - domain registers shouldn't police domains much, but to be ohnest it happens with alot of them in regards to spam, etc.

Mike's always been pretty fair - even for a republican :) LOL

peace

Todd

lol, good stuff here, can't wait to see where this ones goes.....

Your quick, I figured you would argue with me, that is why I edited my post...

I do have a question for you though...

Why do you think it is your job to tell everyone how to run there business and what you think of its appearance...?

Didn't you learn from trying to ruin me that people just look down on you for stuff like this and it slowly, but surely ruins your rep...?

Look at your auction for an exaimple, my guess is it would went well over ten grand if it wasn't for what you did..... :2 cents:

This is stupid and I do agree with you. Hopefully this will get sorted :(

This definately needs some answers.

Registrars should not be be judge, jury, police or enforcement. If this is coming from someone above Directnic they should be the ones enforcing, not the registrar.

This thread isn't trying to ruin anyone. It is trying to protect people from what I can see. If you own a domain you should be concerned with the way this case is being handled as it could affect you somehow in the future.

I'll be happy to answer these for you, even though it's lame drama and has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand:

1. I don't think it's my job to tell DirectNic how to run their business. They can implement whatever policies they like (assuming that they're legal). However I have every right to state my personal opinion of the actions of any company, and what I believe those actions might mean in a larger scale.

2. Everyone saw through your publicity ploy. I doubt many people on here take the things you do seriously, and I never tried to "ruin you". You got a ton of free publicity, and you did your best to play it all up and keep it going for as long as possible, everyone saw that. If you have any business sense at all you can translate some of that into sales.

3. In just 3 auctions I raised over $24,000 for charities. My last auction fetched just as much as my first one did, so your theories are moot. I'm happy with what I was able to accomplish for some worthy causes in 2006, and look forward to doing even more in 2007, considering I didn't start doing auctions this year until August I believe it was.

That will be the last of your ridiculousness that I respond to in this thread. This is a serious thread about a serious subject. If you'd like to be put through the paces again, feel free to start a new thread about your drama.

Directnic has gone above and beyond over the years.
Anyone remember Katrina?
Wait untill you hear from Mike before anyone makes any judgment on this.

I think you may want to reevaluate yourself. From what I've seen, that is not an honest statement. You are one of the biggest drama queens on GFY.

Fair enough.

Katrina has nothing to do with them requesting to do what is basically a 2257 inspection.

Nor does whether or not anyone that owns the company or works there is a good person or not. Nor does who they hang out with in bars or rub elbows with at conventions.

This is a policy issue.

Sometimes good people can have bad policies.

I'd be very satisfied if tomorrow or later in the week DirectNic says they don't intend to ask for such private documents about 3rd party individuals in the future, and won't hold a domain owner hostage until said documents are turned over. If they want to say I'm an asshole for bringing this up before they issue a statement, that's fine too.

I understand that some sort of internal corporate conversation is going to be going on tomorrow in DirectNic, and that some sort of decision will be made about moving forward. Which is exactly why I wanted to state my personal opinions about the matter, and open a dialog for others to do the same, NOW and not AFTER a decision is made.

Sometimes public dialog can help steer policy, both governmental and corporate.

I guess I'm jumping in with BoyAlley to wonder what the fuck business DirectNic has playing 2257 police. If they feel something is being done illegally, they should be contacting the authorities, not the site owner. If not, they should mind their own fucking business.

I'm sure the guys at the company are "stand-up" and "top notch", but when companies start sending shit like that out to people and threaten to hold their domains, shit has gone too far. I don't need some explanation, the letter is enough to know that I wouldn't want to trust my domains with that company.

This is an issue that will surely see more of the spotlight once Mike does (or doesn't) deliver the report on what happened and why.

If it comes out on the wrong side of what's proper for a registrar, you'll have all the support in the world.

For now, at least, I'm going to take a "wait and see" attitude, and, well .. wait and see.

I'm with ya man, if there is anything I can do, let me know

Okay, question here: In general, does anyone know the implications for a host or registrar that is informed that a model is underage on a site, and then fails to take action?

Are we in the same range as DCMA? Would they become contributory to the situation, and therefore potentially liable? As the likely deep pocket defendant in such a circumstance, would a registrar not find it in their best interest to address these issues directly and without delay?

I would agree that in the specific case of 2257, it would appear that they cannot (and should not) provide model documents to a third party (Directnic).

HOWEVER: It may be within Directnic's scope of operation to assure that the domains that they provide registration services for are legal. We are not talking just "we don't like that fetish", but in fact the potential (real or imagined) of CP images being used or being linked to (again, intentionally or unintentionally, I am not here to judge).

So before we string Mike, Sig, and the rest of the Directnic people up by the balls in public, perhaps giving them a chance to explain might be nice.

Fuck DirectNic. What they did is wrong, as well as illegal.

DMCA is VERY different.

With DMCA, statement of fact is being made by the complainant, that yes indeed I know for a fact this individual is violating copyright, because I am the legal copyright holder. The ISP "KNOWS" that a violation is taking place. If someone makes a false DMCA claim, they face serious legal penalty. Thus the checks and balances.

In some incidents some tech companies may be required to take action. But "Take action" legally means notifying the proper authorities so that they can take a look into things, not try to position themselves to be 2257 inspectors and demand records.

BELIEVE ME when I tell you that the folks over at Innocent Images at the FBI have massive databases and can autonomously determine to some extent rather quickly whether or not a site may contain true CP, and they don't waste their time on things that are not. They are dedicated people that devote their lives to protecting children, and don't get caught up in the ridiculous political muck-a-muck that goes on in Washington.

Again, forcing a person to choose between potentially violating privacy laws, and losing their domains, is NOT something that our industry (or any industry for that matter) should be tolerating.

I agree with you that what they did is wrong.

Whether or not it was illegal I honestly don't know the answer to that for sure, but it is an interesting question. Can a registrar legally require a domain owner to turn over private identification documents of third party individuals or face having their domains shut down?

If it is legal, it shouldn't be. Let's put it that way.

Im amused.

Anybody that has been around this business for any length of time knows that MikeAI and directnic's reputation speaks for itself.

We took all our domains away from them when they locked our account claiming a domain in 1000 of alexa is front for a mail spam operation and threatening to delete it. They didn't even provide a sample spam or anything. When we were contacting them on the phone they were giving us a hard time talking about Katrina and basically they don't a shit about our property.

Wow, I'm with BoyAlley on this one.

You could, perhaps, avoid all this drama by allowing them to view the said ID documents, with all details but date of birth and photo blacked out. Could you not? Just keep in mind that despite existing laws, the courts are rarely on the side of the pornographer, particularly if some bastards have slipped in some cries of 'cp'.

Cover your bases, ask them to sign a document stating that they are intend to force you to break privacy laws. Then they're liable, and not you.

Just remember the golden rule - be polite. Keep your head and I'm sure things will work out for themselves.

ok I'm with you boyalley. However when you become a client of any firm you agree with their terms (if you don't like them you should go somewhere else).
http://www.directnic.com/legal/#CP
http://www.adslpromo.be/dn.jpg
Basically there they are saying that they just can do anything they want to investigate if you are in violation or not. It suck but it's all right there in their TOS

Postcount +1

collecting money from illegal activities? To do them what? Is that even legal?

BoyAlley, you miss my point entirely. I know this isn't DCMA, but I have a feeling that there may be legal liabilities for Directnic if someone says "I know that this image is CP", and they fail to take action. I suspect that thier TOS (as quoted above) is written specifically to give them very agressive means by which they may take action to remedy a situation or remove themselves from a position of liability.

No, they are not in the positon to check 2257 documents, they are not the AG... but if someone reports a CP image to Directnic and they do nothing... where would they be legally? I suspect that the hosting company may be looking at a similar piece of paper if it was sent that way.

The question I have are:

Where did the complaint come from, if any, or is this just a random check by Directnic itself?

Is the source of the complaint credible, or is it an anonymous tip?

Is Directnic's TOS in these matters in line with the overall rights of a registrar as granted by ICANN or whoever it is that grants those things these days?

=-=-=-=-=-=

As a side note, I looked at some of Slick's TGPs, and I could see where some members of the public might be lead to think that some of the models might not be of age. Baiting pedos with legal images is a trick that has been around for a very long time indeed.

was thinking about doing the same thing soul, who did you migrate your domains too?

We moved to Moniker.com after doing some research on this.

I understand some employee can overeact or make a mistake, but the whole procedure we went through for five whole days was a nightmare and non-excused. For example we got accussed of fake whois info which wasn't true and no surprise they didn't bother to call the phone number listed even when we told them so. We had to send various documents via fax and when we do that we were getting told they don't have physical access to the office the fax was etc etc.

I would be breaking the laws of the country I lived in if I handed over that information to a company like that.