DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[tony404]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Try and wrap your head around this, brain of America. Now pay attention....models are employees. Privacy laws apply to anyone who you hire and have a social insurance number for. If this is another garden path gotcha kind of thing, just piss off. Because it is obvious for what the laws are intended. Read what Lady Mischief wrote and if you are having a real problem figuring that out, there is always google. Nice to see you have cleaned up your vocabulary though. That is a step in the right direction.

I am getting weary of having to explain the obvious to you. I am beginning to change my opinion of you from ignorance to stupidity. I certainly hope it isn't actually both.

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

As I posted earlier, I wasn't totally sure. However, I would guess, as in most of these grey areas, that there would be a few legal opinons on that. Certainly not one I would like to challenge in a court of law. I would err on the side of caution rather than gamble with a jail sentence.
Edit: Also would any registrar accept something that had been photoshopped or altered to hide anything. Prolly not.

[gonzo]

This is a damn good debate.

No one here worrying about me fitting into cars, calling people snitches or worried if I have access....

While I admite DirectNic's ethical stance Im not sure how all of this will shake out.

This does bring to light a lot of the proposed 2257 changes specifically secondary producer issues.

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Then there are several stalking issues that stem from this if you have to give up the models ID to any secondary producer.

Im not certain where DirectNic is going with all of this. Its certainly an issue that all need to stay informed of.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

This is a damn good debate.

No one here worrying about me fitting into cars, calling people snitches or worried if I have access....

While I admite DirectNic's ethical stance Im not sure how all of this will shake out.

This does bring to light a lot of the proposed 2257 changes specifically secondary producer issues.

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Then there are several stalking issues that stem from this if you have to give up the models ID to any secondary producer.

Im not certain where DirectNic is going with all of this. Its certainly an issue that all need to stay informed of.

I really think they are trying to move out of the adult business and make a clean break.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Since when? When I bought property with cash they copied my license and when I bought my house and later refinanced my house they copied my license - done by attorneys whom I'm pretty sure know the laws.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Since when? When I bought property with cash they copied my license and when I bought my house and later refinanced my house they copied my license - done by attorneys whom I'm pretty sure know the laws.

Look it up. I guarantee you it is the case.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Look it up. I guarantee you it is the case.

You made the statement - YOU look it up. I have a puppy chewing up all my furniture I have to deal with.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

You made the statement - YOU look it up. I have a puppy chewing up all my furniture I have to deal with.

I already know its the case.

Your the one disputing it not me.

[Peaches]

Well, a quick Google shows Kennesaw University asking for a copy of your Georgia driver's license. So far, that's a state university and 4 lawyers who are saying it's OK.

Feel free to show otherwise

Edited to add - it seems all the state colleges require a copy of your Georgia Driver's license. Maybe you need to let them know that's illegal. Need the names and numbers of my attorneys too?

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Well, a quick Google shows Kennesaw University asking for a copy of your Georgia driver's license. So far, that's a state university and 4 lawyers who are saying it's OK.

Feel free to show otherwise

The laws will differ state-to-state, and if I'm not wrong, schools are by extension government (or at least partially government-funded) agencies who are ruled and regulated by government agencies.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by gonzo

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Copy it without permission? Yeah, that would likely be covered under the Open Records Act as DMV records are specifically excluded in the state of Georgia.

But if you're saying it's illegal to copy it if someone voluntarily supplies it to you, then I call bullshit unless you can find the statute. If it's true, it's violated left and right by everyone including the state.

Everyone from the DOL on down asks you to supply a "government issued photo id" which they copy for their records as proof they checked it. They dont say it HAS to be drivers license, but that is typically the ONLY government issued photo id most people carry with them.

Because there is protected personal information on a driver's license, privacy laws would also dictate how that copy would be stored, who can access it, etc.

But as far as I know if I hand you my driver's license for you to copy, there's nothing illegal.

Now a tip for anyone who ever wants to take issue with people who ask for it, you can get a state provided "photo identification card" that is totally separate from your driver's license. In Georgia, you get it at the DMV, same basic process as driver's license (need to provide birth certificate, etc) you just dont have to take the driver's test.

[softball]

I have a bit of an issue with Directnic's silence. They seem to be dealing with this the same way they did when accused of kiting. They ignored it. Maybe it is a good business strategy, but in the long run, I don't think it is effective. Once maybe, but twice or more is just ducking. Or, like I said earlier, are they trying to bail on adult and come out fighting in the straight market.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I have a bit of an issue with Directnic's silence. They seem to be dealing with this the same way they did when accused of kiting. They ignored it. Maybe it is a good business strategy, but in the long run, I don't think it is effective. Once maybe, but twice or more is just ducking. Or, like I said earlier, are they trying to bail on adult and come out fighting in the straight market.

Again signs point to there being something going on we do not know.

Unless their domain portfolio is balanced radically different from how I think it is, dumping adult and going after the likes of GoDaddy, etc for mainstream marketshare doesn't seem too bright. Only way that would make sense would be if they have a potential mainstream buyer on the hook who is asking them to clean things up.

Let's say a public company was looking to buy them, only a matter of time before competitors clue in the media and it's leaked that Directnic is home to A LOT of porn domains. This makes public company look bad and brings questions from shareholders and media that they do not want. Now paint the same scenario but arm your PR team with the actions Directnic is doing right now.

Kinda makes you go hmmmmmm.....

[AnotherGrogan]

I found the thread at "GFY" (heheh, nice acronym) and read through most of it. Well I had to skip some of the pages in the middle because it's just too many and too much bickering. Time for bed, delirium setting in. There's lots I hadn't considered, but I haven't really changed my opinion.

I see my post got quoted and scrutinized there as well. I'm not going to register there, but I can assure you that no, adult sites have nothing to do with my business. I'm a "surfer" in terms of not being an adult site operator but I'm a surfer that knows a thing or ten about how the Internet works. Some of us techies like to look at galleries too. Mr. Presumptuous over there is welcome to a nice steaming cup of "Shut the Heck Up". Tasty stuff. I know

[LadyMischief]

Ok, I think I do need to make a statement about TGP, since I know the vast majority of people here have limited experience with the medium, and probably know even less about running one/maintaining trades.


Anyone who's ever run a tgp knows that it's a full time job. If you run a NETWORK of them, even moreso. Some of these tgps have HUNDREDS of trades, it's the way that they ensure traffic growth to their own sites. Each trade has to be hand-reviewed before it's put in, and TGP owners have to continually go BACK to these trades to make sure what's put there is NOT illegal or offensive (such as CP). Oftentimes only going to a site once you will NOT neccessarily see anything that would be offensive, and MANY times these assholes who run the tgps/networks that DO offer CP do NOT put those things into place until AFTER they establish trades with people. So let me give a scenario that might make people realize that Slick as much as his diligence would have helped, also fell victim in a way to something that happens to tgp people on a consitant basis.

Let's lay out the scenario. I'm a tgp owner looking for trades or adding trades to my site.. Someone sends me an email or contacts me looking for a trade (or perhaps even enters it into an automatic form that some scripts have for trades). I review the site and everything looks good, so I add him into my trade system (this is where the skims go, that percentage can be changed, but only within a certain median if it's going to maintain site growth). He putters in my trades for a while, I don't go back to check every day, I have 500 trades, I can't review them all daily. I have my hands full going through the 10,000+ galleries sitting in queue from chameleon submitter people and other submits. So the trade I added starts putting up CP, and suddenly my skims/trades are CP sites, even though they weren't when I added them. I wouldn't know this unless a) I went to my trades every day, b) someone reported it to me or c) one of my trades reported the problem or posted somewhere and they let me know. It's not like it's something that's in their face every second.

Not to mention the fact that most tgp scripts run some sort of thumb rotator, so two different people going to a page will NOT neccessarily see the same thumbs, and this can make it even MORE difficult to detect potential difficulties within the trades. Slick can be responsible for what is on his own network, and he can do his BEST to stay on top of his trades, but in reality, he may not ever have known that his trades had CP or "virtual" CP on them. It would have been very likely in fact that he never had a clue.

Just throwing this out there because people are very quick to hold Slick to the fire for his "affiliations" without actually realizing everything that's involved in that process. Due diligence would have helped him a lot, but in all honesty I can see very well how he wouldn't have gone and reviewed every trade on every site on his network on a consistant enough basis to weed out problem trades. I can almost guarantee there are a dozen other tgps right now trading traffic with the sites Slick is getting nailed for trading with, and they don't even realize what's on those sites.

(Remember the trades I'm talking about are the "redirects", that's the TGP skim, it's a percentage of traffic that tgp owners trade around to promote the growth of their systems... If a script sends 2 hits to so and so, their script will send him hits back, and it's this kind of traffic trades that grow tgps).

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by AnotherGrogan

I found the thread at "GFY" (heheh, nice acronym) and read through most of it. Well I had to skip some of the pages in the middle because it's just too many and too much bickering. Time for bed, delirium setting in. There's lots I hadn't considered, but I haven't really changed my opinion.

I see my post got quoted and scrutinized there as well. I'm not going to register there, but I can assure you that no, adult sites have nothing to do with my business. I'm a "surfer" in terms of not being an adult site operator but I'm a surfer that knows a thing or ten about how the Internet works. Some of us techies like to look at galleries too. Mr. Presumptuous over there is welcome to a nice steaming cup of "Shut the Heck Up". Tasty stuff. I know

You are in Ontario too and seem like a super smart guy. I'd love to chat with you.. Please email me, treasure@homegrownvideo.com Seems to me I could use a "surfer" with your kind of smarts for something I'm working on You can also hit me up on icq 3522039.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

But if you're saying it's illegal to copy it if someone voluntarily supplies it to you, then I call bullshit unless you can find the statute. If it's true, it's violated left and right by everyone including the state.

I'm still waiting for his proof. I guess he's been working the last 24 hours.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by tony404

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

That would be considered personal information (especially if it is an actual scan or copy of the ID, BIG NONO) and would be illegal under PIPA regulations in Canada, and multiple international and even state regulations in the US.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

That would be considered personal information (especially if it is an actual scan or copy of the ID, BIG NONO) and would be illegal under PIPA regulations in Canada, and multiple international and even state regulations in the US.

Unless of course the person has given permission in a release or contract, right?

Has anyone asked what is in the particular model releases associated with the content in question? So, for all any of us know, it might be perfectly legal to release the info to DN.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Unless of course the person has given permission in a release or contract, right?

Has anyone asked what is in the particular model releases associated with the content in question? So, for all any of us know, it might be perfectly legal to release the info to DN.

Releases, ID, all personal information right down to birthdate is covered under the law as it stands. You can try to muddy the waters with your speculation, but I think what I put there is pretty clear. I could also hunt up the entire contents of the seminar that our legal expert put together. That might help clear up a few more of your misconceptions if you like

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

You can try to muddy the waters with your speculation

Oh, I see how this works. The anti DN force is allowed to speculate all they want and assume that directnic did this out of the blue, on their own with no govenement inquiry starting he whole thing off, assume that none of the sponsors have privacy right clauses in their releases and assume that because Slick used sponsor content on a site that HE is PERSNALLY responsible for that the content was totally legal.

But if I make one speculation I am muddyng the waters?

You want in on the bet thread LM ?

[Peaches]

Looks like Experian can also ask for and receive a copy of your Georgia's driver's license.

OK, I've found at least THREE instances where it's legal to make a copy of a Georgia driver's license.

Batter up, Gonzo

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Looks like Experian can also ask for and receive a copy of your Georgia's driver's license.

OK, I've found at least THREE instances where it's legal to make a copy of a Georgia driver's license.

Batter up, Gonzo

Ill look when Im done with work.

[Hammer]

Ah, I see the confusion. I said Spike but misspoke and meant to say Slick.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Oh, I see how this works. The anti DN force is allowed to speculate all they want and assume that directnic did this out of the blue, on their own with no govenement inquiry starting he whole thing off, assume that none of the sponsors have privacy right clauses in their releases and assume that because Slick used sponsor content on a site that HE is PERSNALLY responsible for that the content was totally legal.

But if I make one speculation I am muddyng the waters?

You want in on the bet thread LM ?

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

I disagree only on the point that they don't have the right to do it. When the contract was signed, the right was given. Period. If you (universal you there) had a problem with the contract, either don't agree to it or take a case to court to prove the contract unenforceable thereby forcing the registrar to change the contract. A third option would be after the fact getting an injunction stopping the contact from being enforced until a judge can rule on the contracts legality.

None of these were done which in my mind says that the contract is considered enforceable by Slick's lawyer and makes all the discussion about whether DN has the right or not moot.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

No waiting for the government to really start regulating us , could really threaten us. Im sorry but everything isnt ok , we as a industry have to say somethings cross the line or we will be very fucked.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by tony404

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

I have purchased plenty of content that came with the model's ID intact, but your question about 'redacted' IDs was answered back when the FSC first filed the injunction, because that was one of their earliest vitories. Recacted IDs (address blacked out) are legal as long as the DOB and photo are visible and I don't see any privacy issue in that case.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I have purchased plenty of content that came with the model's ID intact, but your question about 'redacted' IDs was answered back when the FSC first filed the injunction, because that was one of their earliest vitories. Recacted IDs (address blacked out) are legal as long as the DOB and photo are visible and I don't see any privacy issue in that case.

In Canada, that would be considered personal information, especially if it's offered in conjunction with the photo of the person.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

In Canada, that would be considered personal information, especially if it's offered in conjunction with the photo of the person.

OK, I missed it in all that typage - where does it mention DOBs or photos being personal information?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

In Canada, that would be considered personal information, especially if it's offered in conjunction with the photo of the person.

That's why I don't buy any content from Canadian producers.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I have purchased plenty of content that came with the model's ID intact, but your question about 'redacted' IDs was answered back when the FSC first filed the injunction, because that was one of their earliest vitories. Recacted IDs (address blacked out) are legal as long as the DOB and photo are visible and I don't see any privacy issue in that case.

That would be an American decision. It would not effect us.

[Hammer]

In this case, DN is acting as the judge and jury and presuming guilt. Even if Spike can't or refuses to produce the 2257 documents, that doesn't prove that the content on his site is illegal.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Hammer

In this case, DN is acting as the judge and jury and presuming guilt. Even if Spike can't or refuses to produce the 2257 documents, that doesn't prove that the content on his site is illegal.

I never said Spike or HG... I'm referring to CANADIANS. Homegrown has their docs well in order, but I do hear what you're saying. It's the principle of the thing that is my main point of argue. I hate CP, I have two young daughters, and I have reported more than my fair share of sites to ASCAP and the FBI over the years. It's the principle of the thing, and the fact the domains were pulled before this guy was given a chance to produce ANYTHING. What will that mean for the future?

[LadyMischief]

Not to mention multiple sponsors he was promoting have stepped up and offered to hand over docs to help him out. It's their content that is the cause of scrutiny and issue, I'm honestly surprised this hasn't turned into a witchhunt for teen sponsors.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Not to mention multiple sponsors he was promoting have stepped up and offered to hand over docs to help him out. It's their content that is the cause of scrutiny and issue, I'm honestly surprised this hasn't turned into a witchhunt for teen sponsors.

What are the name of the sponsors in question?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I never said Spike or HG... I'm referring to CANADIANS.

I didn't say you did and I'm not getting involved in the Canadian debate, I'm simply talking about what DN is doing.