DirectNics legal rights in relation to its recent actions - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

aico · 12-16-2006, 07:16 PM

I am buying stock in soapboxes... jesus christ.

Quick Buck · 12-16-2006, 07:17 PM

DirectNic doesn't facilitate communication, Verisign does. Directnic is just a reseller. In any case, I don't recall seeing anything explicit on his pages.

Sarettah has got to be the ugliest chick ever.

Dennis69 · 12-16-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

And the MikeAI Retard Squad continues its mission!

I'm truly amazed that RawAlex isn't also in this thread for Dn

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis69

I'm truly amazed that RawAlex isn't also in this thread for Dn

I'm sure he'll be in here as soon as he comes up from between mike's ass-cheeks for some air. Give him time........

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Pointless wasting time on this since there is no basis/evidence to evaluate anything and we are neither law enforcement or lawyers...

1) You are not an attorney and not qualified to give any legal advice.

2) Unless you have seen the actual complaint in full detail, name and address of the complainant, the actual content on which the complaint is based, together with any further background information - you know nothing about the complaint or if this exists.

3) Unless you are privy to the legal strategy of lawyers acting on behalf of DirectNic, you have no idea why they may have elected to act in the manner they did, nor what laws they considered when electing to close down domains without any apparent legal process or law enforcement involvement.

4) You know nothing of the results of any investigation about the "apparent illegality". The qualified authority for establishing the fact of any illegality are law enforcement and their lawyers - a qualified authority does not include domain registrars, members of the public, my dog or the president of the US.

Simply put - you are messing in shit you know nothing about - pointless thread.

1. I did not say I was an attorney, nor did I offer legal advice. I offered up my opinion. I just did something very few people around here are used to seeing. I backed it up.

2. Slick stated that DN told him there was a complaint. The response from DN was to post their policies regarding what they do when they get a cp complaint. If there is no complaint then DN will be in major shit on that point alone so I think we can safely assume that there is a complaint. As to the nature of the complaint, again DN posted their cp guidelines as their response to the issue, so we can figure that it is a cp complaint. We don't know much more than that except through extrapolating from the various thumbs and links that Slick identified for us.

3. No, I doo not know what their legal strategy was, is or will be. I did not state that this was DNs legal strategy or the reasoning that they used.

4. Nope I don't know the results of the investigation as to the apparent illegality. I did not say I did. I did say they had a right to make the investigation.

The thread is no more or less pointless than most threads on this board

interracialtoons · 12-16-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

put it next to a mirror.

Own3d

cj_purve · 12-16-2006, 07:56 PM

if slick did nothing wrong, why didn't he just provide the 2257 when he was asked instead of bringing it here?

my laymans understanding of 2257 is that anyone has the right to ask for it if they are involved in business with that person in any way ... for example, I always get requests from webmasters for 2257 for models I shoot ... webmasters have a right to know that they are promoting legal content (even if they aren't buying it to publish themselves) ... a registrar should have the right to know if they are providing an address for legal content to be viewed at.

I've never used directnic because I'm too lazy to transfer domains from all over, but all I know is that there's 2 parties involved ... 1 who is respected globally in many areas of business both adult and mainstream, and 1 who refused to provide proof that his models were of legal age to get nekkid.

Its been a very interesting read though and we can all learn something from the outcome ... I hope the parties sort it out quietly, because this type of situation does nothing for our industry if the story explodes.

BoyAlley · 12-16-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_purve

if slick did nothing wrong, why didn't he just provide the 2257 when he was asked instead of bringing it here?

my laymans understanding of 2257 is that anyone has the right to ask for it if they are involved in business with that person in any way ... for example, I always get requests from webmasters for 2257 for models I shoot ... webmasters have a right to know that they are promoting legal content (even if they aren't buying it to publish themselves) ... a registrar should have the right to know if they are providing an address for legal content to be viewed at.

Uhm...............................

ok.

1. They "technically" didn't ask for 2257, because although their original email to him didn't say so, they came back and said the IDs JUST needed to show pic and DOB and everything else could be edited out. Whether that's still a violation of privacy laws I have no idea.

2. He was gathering docs, because they gave him several days (until the 18th I think) to show them, but turned him off the next morning, something like 5 days early.

3. Your understanding that "anyone" is entitled to your actual 2257 records is seriously flawed and likely to get you into trouble.

4. I hope for your own sake your model releases specifically allow you to pass out the types of personal identifications that you're apparently handing around like candy. And, even if it does,

5. If you're really producing content, and these are your views, I suggest you consult with an attorney. It sounds to me like you could use some guidance....

directfiesta · 12-16-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Sarettah is a he (6'4, 225 oogly as hell he). One of the first things I learned about adult boards was to know who you were talking to, learn about who's around, not just the bigwigs but the little guys too.

Secondly, I am 51 years old and yes I came up with all that on my own. Took a couple of hours of research and, I don't know, an hour or so to write up.

It's a wonder what an education can do for you, ya know.

what is your hourly rate ?

Just curious....

NoComments · 12-16-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick Buck

Sarettah has got to be the ugliest chick ever.

yeap, and this chick has 2 balls, dick, and if you ask him politely,
he'll let you suck on it. Just give him shades and tell him to think of Paris Hilton.

Webby · 12-16-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

what is your hourly rate ?

Just curious....

Dunno what the hourly rate is for a paralegal clairvoyant df...

SmokeyTheBear · 12-16-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Isn´t that the whole point of the 2257 rules? That the burden of proof is with the website owner? And that the lack of 2257 is evidence something is wrong -

thats what you seem to be missing , we both agree thats what 2257 is for and thats what courts and laws and police are for... I am all for a FAIR process thats laid out such as..

If a complaint is filed on an american based site to a registrar and the site has no 2257 info displayed , its cutoff , thats fair .. as long as everyone knows the rules..

A complaint would be made directnic would be forced to investigate and inform the authoraties and they would issue a warrant to directnic to have the site shutdown.. this way directnic has nothing to do with it.. the LAW does.. this gets things solved.. arbitrarily shutting down sites based on allegations with no merit don't

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Also it is not "every adult site", which have to worry... no one is going to check if some granny porn star is of legal age. Sure they might check, but the risk of someone wanting to check the IDs is alot higher with teen sites.

Thats where your wrong , according to directnic if a complaint is filed they HAVE to investigate. if you dont prove yourself innocent of any allegations it appears your site gets shutoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Bottomline - a few people do not like DN or they were shocked to learn about a registrar who actual responded to a CP complaint, and they used Slick to attack DN, but in doing so they made the risk go up for both Slick and DN.

Again your way off base.. Alot of people love directnic but are concerned about our rights being trampled on.. we want a CLEAR set of guidlines to follow..
not . if someone somewhere decides your shit might be underage your shit gets canned and busniess trashed..

lucky1 · 12-16-2006, 09:11 PM

It's gotten to the point where I don't even really care about this whole ordeal anymore.

What I have gotten out of this whole thing is that I don't think DN went about this the right way.

Will I personally use DN as a registrar? No
Should you use DN as a registrar? I could care less.
Did DN do anything illegal? I don't know and none of us actually will because this will never go to court.

The best thing that came out of this whole thing is that Slick is going to remove "questionable material" from his sites and check who he links to more carefully. This ordeal has also made people more aware that by using this kind of content you become a target. Right or wrong you will be a target.

fris · 12-16-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Many people on this board have spent the past few days stating that DirectNic, as a registrar, did not have the legal right or authority to take the actions they did.

First Amendment attorney and Free Speech Coalition Chairman Jeffrey Douglas said the ID request is unprecedented, and more importantly, a violation of privacy laws. According to Douglas, the request is illegal, and also could have a chilling effect on the free speech of webmasters that deal in legal teen content.

?This is a blatant and absolute violation of privacy laws,? Douglas told XBIZ. ?There?s absolutely no legal liability for the registrar if underage models appear on a website. DirectNIC is an officious intermeddler.?

dig420 · 12-16-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

I know what they were requesting and whoever has been saying the request was illegal are wrong. I have that from a lawyer. They did not ask for information that was forbidden under federal privacy laws because they only wanted the picture and dob, nothing else.

Oh, if I am wrong, please point me to the law they violated by requesting the information.

what I don't understand is why you would talk to a lawyer, do all this research, write this magnum opus - for nothing.

It's either the ultimate asskissery, you have nothing else to do with your time, or you're getting paid.

Sadly, i don't think you're getting paid.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

what I don't understand is why you would talk to a lawyer, do all this research, write this magnum opus - for nothing.

It's either the ultimate asskissery, you have nothing else to do with your time, or you're getting paid.

Sadly, i don't think you're getting paid.

How about because it was fun. Different folks have different ideas of fun. Some wrestle physically, some wrestle mentally.

I also got in about 2 or 3 hours of riding, got some christmas shopping done and finished off a programming project today. So writing that was my relaxation for the evening. Beat watching the tube.

edited in: the lawyer is a friend who I was talking to anyway.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

what is your hourly rate ?

Just curious....

For all rates please refer to http://www.fuckingprogrammers.com

Thanx in advance

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Dunno what the hourly rate is for a paralegal clairvoyant df...

The clairvoyance is a gift, it wouldn't be right to charge for it.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fris

First Amendment attorney and Free Speech Coalition Chairman Jeffrey Douglas said the ID request is unprecedented, and more importantly, a violation of privacy laws. According to Douglas, the request is illegal, and also could have a chilling effect on the free speech of webmasters that deal in legal teen content.

?This is a blatant and absolute violation of privacy laws,? Douglas told XBIZ. ?There?s absolutely no legal liability for the registrar if underage models appear on a website. DirectNIC is an officious intermeddler.?

If it was not clear before this, please be aware that I think he is wrong. Sorry that concept was not understood.

sarettah · 12-16-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winetalk

yeap, and this chick has 2 balls, dick, and if you ask him politely,
he'll let you suck on it. Just give him shades and tell him to think of Paris Hilton.

Paris Hilton? That's hot

cj_purve · 12-16-2006, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Uhm...............................

ok.

1. They "technically" didn't ask for 2257, because although their original email to him didn't say so, they came back and said the IDs JUST needed to show pic and DOB and everything else could be edited out. Whether that's still a violation of privacy laws I have no idea.

2. He was gathering docs, because they gave him several days (until the 18th I think) to show them, but turned him off the next morning, something like 5 days early.

3. Your understanding that "anyone" is entitled to your actual 2257 records is seriously flawed and likely to get you into trouble.

4. I hope for your own sake your model releases specifically allow you to pass out the types of personal identifications that you're apparently handing around like candy. And, even if it does,

5. If you're really producing content, and these are your views, I suggest you consult with an attorney. It sounds to me like you could use some guidance....

I am sorry if you misunderstood my post, I guess my wording was a little open to drama queen interpretation ... but I never said I would give out 2257 docs, and I am not basing my views on what he said she said they did like you appear to be. If they asked for id's, then yeah that would be a prob, but we have to be able to prove we have 2257 docs to anyone who asks & this case if a big fat example of the flaws in the process and our lack of understanding (yours included) of how the processes work. While everyone would bring attorney's in for the major items or anything that appears like it might become an issue, this appears to have been a minor situation that just got handled badly by staff who aren't lawyers & didn't know better.

And in continuing with that trend of ignorance, we have a bunch of pornographers arguing about how the law applies in a case we aren't involved in ... We should all be mouths closed/ears open with this case because whatever happens, its a set of laws that haven't really been tested yet.

Lance69 · 12-17-2006, 02:18 PM

Ok my opinion probably means dick here, but I'm gonna give it anyway.
From the point of view of a model on many websites that people here on GFY own. As are many of my friends, , Directnic, nor any registrar, should have any legal right to my fucking ID. Pure and simple. Identity theft and stalkers abound and obviously this company has no intention of following privacy laws so why should I feel comfortable with my ID in their hands or the hands of their employees?
The only people entitled are law enforcement agencies. Nobody sane, or responsible likes CP. But that's what the police are for. "Report it", so they can do a proper investigation. Directnic Go fuck yourselves.

Pleasurepays · 12-17-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance69

nobody sane, or responsible likes CP. But that's what the police are for. "Report it", so they can do a proper investigation. Directnic Go fuck yourselves.

look at it backwards... say you find the most VILE site you have ever seen in your life full of 5 year olds being molested by adults. videos.. pics etc. 100's of 1000's.

lets say that they are all from some village outside Moscow. the guy managing the site is doing it on dial up from an apartment in there that he rents under an assumed name.

Ok... you see it. Now what?

What do you do?

Call the FBI?

I would love for the ASACP to jump in here and explain the exact process.. for shutting the site down. I have discussed this very thing in the past with people from the computer crimes department in Moscow though. All they need is an IP and they can find the provider, the phone number and the exact location and go arrest him in a matter of minutes.

Do you think its that simple?

Instead, this process involves local, state and federal law enforcement, Customs, The Postal Service, INTERPOL (multiple departments and multiple jurisdictions), The Ministry of Internal Affairs in Russia (multiple departments), the FSB (fka KGB) (multiple departments) as well as countless courts and judges.

So... while all these people are fucking off back and forth.. some guy is still raping kids and selling the images and videos. He could be doing it for months... even more than a year. But he's not dumb... he's moving too. He's changing hosts, locations etc.

Calling the FBI doesn't just mean "sites gone, kids are safe" - it means the problem now enters into a long, impossible and beaurocratic clusterfuck at the direct expense of children who are being abused.

THE problem here is that registrars and hosting companies are the only ones that can take IMMEDIATE action and a hosting company doesn't change anything when they shut of the server. its just a 2-3 day inconvienence.

This whole incident should be seen as a wake up call on many levels. Instead, all the fucking idiots in this biz think they should just move their domains to another registrar who have the exact same rights over your domain and shareholders to answer to. Move your domains from DirectNIC. Thats your solution. That will make everything better???? WOW. Thats your right... but pull your head out of your ass and stop thinking they are the problem. DirectNIC didn't create impossible 2257 laws. DirectNIC isn't on TV before the Senate and Congress talking about the end of porn online. DirectNIC didn't give the DOJ and FBI a mandate to shut you down.

Most of the people in this biz should be in Jail if you are from the US right now. Almost no one has even bothered to comply with laws that have been on the books from day 1, much less those that followed. Credit card processors don't like you. The government doesn't like you. Local communities don't like you. The law is already slanted against you in more ways than one and all the boundaries are so fucking gray that if you don't wake up in a cold sweat at night worrying about the law, you just don't understand the risks. You are already risking 5 years in jail and stiff fines and are in a situation where the federal government wants to make an example of YOU (if you are from the US) ... but like most, i can guess you are not even close to being legal.

HERE's WHAT I SUGGEST

1) Hate on DirectNIC if that makes you feel better

2) Start cleaning up your own house, start making others do the same and stop forcing the federal government and others into the position of being forced to do it for you.

SmokeyTheBear · 12-17-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

look at it backwards... say you find the most VILE site you have ever seen in your life full of 5 year olds being molested by adults. videos.. pics etc. 100's of 1000's.

lets say that they are all from some village outside Moscow. the guy managing the site is doing it on dial up from an apartment in there that he rents under an assumed name.

Ok... you see it. Now what?

Did you read my suggestions i posted.. This is easily solved. if the registrar is based in the u.s.a. they should report the domain to the f.b.i. they get a warrant and the site is instantly pulled if there is no 2257 info displayed.. ) it doesnt involve the registrar other than they get served the warrant.. This would take literally minutes.. and the onus is not on directnic to somehow verify someones guilt when they are not qualified or setup to do this... they get served a warrant its out of their hands and a legal issue not a registrar issue

easy as pie . thee should be a process already in place to do this.. suprised they arent..

SmokeyTheBear · 12-17-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

stop forcing the federal government and others into the position of being forced to do it for you.

see sig.. we cant even get playboy ads off a company who ripped off practically everyone on gfy in some way or another.(ibill ) ( including themselves ) . getting everyone to do anything is hard..

Nysus · 12-17-2006, 03:15 PM

I think the thing people are worried about is if it is them next who's time is mostly wasted. Perhaps sponsors need to provide a better way to request 2257 information or to be passed along.

Matt

Pleasurepays · 12-17-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Did you read my suggestions i posted.. This is easily solved. if the registrar is based in the u.s.a. they should report the domain to the f.b.i. they get a warrant and the site is instantly pulled if there is no 2257 info displayed.. ) it doesnt involve the registrar other than they get served the warrant.. This would take literally minutes.. and the onus is not on directnic to somehow verify someones guilt when they are not qualified or setup to do this... they get served a warrant its out of their hands and a legal issue not a registrar issue

easy as pie . thee should be a process already in place to do this.. suprised they arent..

probably because its not practical and doesn't work in the way you describe. this is another VERY old discussion that goes back to the beginning of the web. Lee Noga for a brief time, devoted her life to freaking out about sextracker not taking sites down and the excuse was always the beurocratic process involved and the need to properly investigate everything.

Pleasurepays · 12-17-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nysus

I think the thing people are worried about is if it is them next who's time is mostly wasted. Perhaps sponsors need to provide a better way to request 2257 information or to be passed along.

Matt

the webmaster is supposed to have this info anyway right? did i miss something? doesn't the amended law require that secondary producers have all docs in hand?

Lance69 · 12-17-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

look at it backwards... say you find the most VILE site you have ever seen in your life full of 5 year olds being molested by adults. videos.. pics etc. 100's of 1000's.

lets say that they are all from some village outside Moscow. the guy managing the site is doing it on dial up from an apartment in there that he rents under an assumed name.

Ok... you see it. Now what?

What do you do?

Call the FBI?

Actually yes, that's their fucking job! We can "what if" all day but that doesn't change the fact that directnic has no right to my personal info. And as Smokey said they aren't qualified to even check.
Not to mention if it was that obvious there would be a lot more probable cause, and it wouldn't be that hard to get them shut down. There was an incident in Ontario recently that involved an undercover officer finding an abuse happening in real time online, they had the cops bust in before the act was even finished.

Lance69 · 12-17-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

the webmaster is supposed to have this info anyway right? did i miss something? doesn't the amended law require that secondary producers have all docs in hand?

Regardless if they had it that's for the DOJ and lawful authorities to check, not every numbnuts that asks for it.

directfiesta · 12-17-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance69

There was an incident in Ontario recently that involved an undercover officer finding an abuse happening in real time online, they had the cops bust in before the act was even finished.

I saw the news report on that ....

A crime was in progress ( just like any crime ) and the authorities acted diligently.

Good point Lance69

12-16-2006, 07:17 PM	#52
Quick Buck Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Free-Trials.......... Weekly-Payouts..... 100+Sites Posts: 1,026	DirectNic doesn't facilitate communication, Verisign does. Directnic is just a reseller. In any case, I don't recall seeing anything explicit on his pages. Sarettah has got to be the ugliest chick ever. __________________ $50 FREE TRIALS! Every Day til 2008!!! Only at QuickBuck

12-16-2006, 09:11 PM	#63
lucky1 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 309	It's gotten to the point where I don't even really care about this whole ordeal anymore. What I have gotten out of this whole thing is that I don't think DN went about this the right way. Will I personally use DN as a registrar? No Should you use DN as a registrar? I could care less. Did DN do anything illegal? I don't know and none of us actually will because this will never go to court. The best thing that came out of this whole thing is that Slick is going to remove "questionable material" from his sites and check who he links to more carefully. This ordeal has also made people more aware that by using this kind of content you become a target. Right or wrong you will be a target. __________________ - See sig --->

12-17-2006, 02:18 PM	#72
Lance69 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver BC Posts: 2,266	Ok my opinion probably means dick here, but I'm gonna give it anyway. From the point of view of a model on many websites that people here on GFY own. As are many of my friends, , Directnic, nor any registrar, should have any legal right to my fucking ID. Pure and simple. Identity theft and stalkers abound and obviously this company has no intention of following privacy laws so why should I feel comfortable with my ID in their hands or the hands of their employees? The only people entitled are law enforcement agencies. Nobody sane, or responsible likes CP. But that's what the police are for. "Report it", so they can do a proper investigation. Directnic Go fuck yourselves. __________________ Sonarcash Competitive Content Shooting Handgasm HD Handjobs Janessa Jordan Ultimate Wife Make Money Fucking Blog ICQ: 307 975 028 lance {at} sonarcash {dot} com (<- Need amateur content? Email or ICQ)

12-17-2006, 03:15 PM	#76
Nysus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,817	I think the thing people are worried about is if it is them next who's time is mostly wasted. Perhaps sponsors need to provide a better way to request 2257 information or to be passed along. Matt __________________ What name is pr0 / Untouched Markets using these days? Untouched Markets - pr0 - Refund My Money Now Someone owes me $2,000 because they didn't do any work that was paid for pointing at pr0 / William / UntouchedMarkets See http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/948258-untouchedmarkets-pr0-refund-money-post16744521.html and for more detailed see http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/948645-re-recent-bullshit-drama-explained-detail-pr0-untouched-markets.html

12-16-2006, 07:16 PM	#51
aico Moo Moo Cow Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Washington State Posts: 14,748	I am buying stock in soapboxes... jesus christ.

12-16-2006, 07:56 PM	#57
cj_purve Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,065	if slick did nothing wrong, why didn't he just provide the 2257 when he was asked instead of bringing it here? my laymans understanding of 2257 is that anyone has the right to ask for it if they are involved in business with that person in any way ... for example, I always get requests from webmasters for 2257 for models I shoot ... webmasters have a right to know that they are promoting legal content (even if they aren't buying it to publish themselves) ... a registrar should have the right to know if they are providing an address for legal content to be viewed at. I've never used directnic because I'm too lazy to transfer domains from all over, but all I know is that there's 2 parties involved ... 1 who is respected globally in many areas of business both adult and mainstream, and 1 who refused to provide proof that his models were of legal age to get nekkid. Its been a very interesting read though and we can all learn something from the outcome ... I hope the parties sort it out quietly, because this type of situation does nothing for our industry if the story explodes.