Third Party 2257 Services? - GoFuckYourself.com

Connor · 04-13-2011, 09:38 AM

So asking around on behalf of a company interested in using a third party 2257 service. I understand they're controversial, but does anyone know of one that they use and like? Any thoughts at all on this topic are welcome.

Connor · 04-13-2011, 11:41 AM

bump for Bueller.... Bueller... Bueller...

Connor · 04-14-2011, 07:07 AM

Another day, another bump.

JFK · 04-14-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Another day, another bump.

yup, take it one day at a time

Jim_Gunn · 04-14-2011, 09:12 AM

I don't know that there is any controversy. 2257Safe.com was one of the most notable third party 2257 services when it launched but has now become http://2257Snap.com. You may want to look into that one.

Quentin · 04-14-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

I don't know that there is any controversy. 2257Safe.com was one of the most notable third party 2257 services when it launched but has now become http://2257Snap.com. You may want to look into that one.

The controversy, such as it was, existed through the early stages of FSC v. Gonzales, prior to the point that the DOJ responded to the FSC's interrogatories and clarified that third party record-keeping was permitted under 2257.

More recently, the CFRs themselves that pertain to 2257 were revised to explicitly adopt the DOJ's position that third party record-keeping was permitted under 2257. This was an important change, in that while the DOJ's response the interrogatories was an affirmative 'yes,' it was unclear whether the DOJ would be bound by that response in the future (following additional revisions to other provisions of 2257, for example) since it wasn't actually part of the statutory language or the CFRs. Having it stated clearly in the CFR (28 CFR 75.4, to be precise) takes all ambiguity out of the question of whether third party storage is permissible.

The full text of CFR 75.4, for those interested:

Quote:

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make such records available at the producer's place of business or at the place of business of a non-employee custodian of records. Each record shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business, the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. If the producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an organization, records shall be made available at the organization's place of business or at the place of business of a non-employee custodian of records. If the organization is dissolved, the person who was responsible for maintaining the records, as described in §75.6(b), shall continue to maintain the records for a period of five years after dissolution.

Connor · 04-14-2011, 09:46 AM

Thanks for the response Jim, and good seeing you in Phoenix.

There remains some grumblings in certain legal circles I think, but... alas, that's how it goes.

Quentin · 04-14-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Thanks for the response Jim, and good seeing you in Phoenix.

There remains some grumblings in certain legal circles I think, but... alas, that's how it goes.

Interesting -- what sort of grumblings? Are there attorneys who still doubt that third party record-keeping services are kosher under the law, or are the concerns more specific, like who is liable if a mistake is made, the records themselves are not accurate, etc.?

The attorneys I've talked to about this mostly worry about the possibility of the third party record keeping service going out of business, and the substantial, related question of "what then?"

Connor · 04-14-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

like who is liable if a mistake is made, the records themselves are not accurate, etc.?

Yes I believe that is the general concern. I'm not sure if there was an honest mistake if there would be allowance for that or not.

Quentin · 04-14-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

Yes I believe that is the general concern. I'm not sure if there was an honest mistake if there would be allowance for that or not.

I'm not sure how the FBI views it these days, but back when they were actively conducting inspections and SA Chuck Joyner was leading the inspection team (which may still be the case), he gave producers a 7 day window to "cure defects" in their records, assuming the "defect" in question wasn't an intentional fabrication or represent a patently illegal act of its own.

Provided that the FBI doesn't cite a violation and/or recommend action by the DOJ in their post-inspection report, I think simple, honest clerical mistakes are not likely to get anybody in trouble... but it's far from certain that the reasonable approach favored by Joyner will be adopted by future inspection team leaders, obviously.

04-13-2011, 09:38 AM	#1
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	Third Party 2257 Services? So asking around on behalf of a company interested in using a third party 2257 service. I understand they're controversial, but does anyone know of one that they use and like? Any thoughts at all on this topic are welcome. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

04-13-2011, 11:41 AM	#2
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	bump for Bueller.... Bueller... Bueller... __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

04-14-2011, 07:07 AM	#3
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	Another day, another bump. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

04-14-2011, 09:46 AM	#7
Connor Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,294	Thanks for the response Jim, and good seeing you in Phoenix. There remains some grumblings in certain legal circles I think, but... alas, that's how it goes. __________________ YNOT v5 IS NOW LIVE! \| SEEN YNOT MAIL YET?

04-14-2011, 09:12 AM	#5
Jim_Gunn Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Where The Teens Are Posts: 5,702	I don't know that there is any controversy. 2257Safe.com was one of the most notable third party 2257 services when it launched but has now become http://2257Snap.com. You may want to look into that one.