Liability?
 

I am saddened by the companies who are handing out ids to their affiliates. Not only do I find it dangerous, but morally reprehensible that these companies will put profits above ethics.
That being said- what are the liability issues when a model turns up dead, as a result of a program handing out her id? Would the program be considered an accessory?

yeah but the law says we have to have ids

content providers do not make the laws
they really have no choice

I doubt that most District Attorneys would file criminal charges, but being named in a civil suit by the family is probably quite likely, if they're made aware of how the attacker obtained the personal information.

In that case, should the gov't be considered an accessory?
;-)

No. Not as in jail time or even chargeable.

Could the family sue? Maybe.

Hmm, you're making a lot of assumptions with that post.

1. You assume that it isn't easy already to get a model's id. Most free content offered by sponsors can easily be found and bought for $5 a set from content providers.

2. Do content providers do an extensive background check before you buy? It's been my experience if I put the money down, they'll give me whatever I ask.

3. Some sponsors that are offering the id's do a better background check of their affiliates than most content providers do. Granted, not all sponsors do this, but all the sponsors I use did a check before I became a member.

4. If a model signs a legally binding release and the sponsor thought ahead and made this clear, how could they be legally bound?

5. Those sponsors are also technically following the letter of the law. This isn't something they just dreamed up.

6. One final thing...people always use this generalized idea that the model's id will be handed out to just anyone. This info isn't being passed around to just anyone. These "stalkers, murders, etc" are webmasters...people need to remember that most affiliates 99% of them are business people before anything else. That 1% that isn't, well they might be nutcases, but guess what, they can get the info they need for $5...so...I honestly don't see the risk escalating that much.

What I've talked about above is in regards to most free content offered...I do understand that Solo-girl sites that are exclusive content, where you can't buy them from content providers, etc...that's a different story.

[quote=Mr. Blue]Hmm, you're making a lot of assumptions with that post.

QUOTE]

Not at all. This isn't a "______" is doing it too" thread. Just asking a pointed question.

And not all of the programs offering ids are screening- I know of one who will hand them out for the asking.

Surfers are savvier than they are given credit for. Just yesterday I had one sign up to our program, then immediately join one of our paysites. Surfers are all over the webmaster forums. The know-how is readily available. Besides, who says that webmasters are any less capable of being creepy than surfers? People are people.

I still feel that it's a matter of putting dollars ahead of people's physical safety, and it's wrong.

Well, you miss the point that it's been happening for over a year already. There hasn't been an incident. It is a matter of who's also doing it because they're the same ones supply the free content sponsors are using.

Model ID's have been readily handed out for over a year already...nothing has happened...2257 sucks all around, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the law and these id's have already been tossed around to thousands of people without incident.

anyway the models address were and are available to any surfer that can use google

this thread proves my point
http://www.rip-productions.ws/forum/...ad.php?t=18113

[quote=emmanuelle]So you're saying that surfers surf these boards...shocking, so they also could be the ones that are buying content from these content providers? It's already out there...unless 2257 is overhauled completely its going to remain out there.

Point proven.

Handing out the IDs in Canada, without the expressed WRITTEN consent of the model, would break out federal privacy laws. I am not a lawyer but I know that much.

I am sure that individual states would have similar legislation thereby putting affiliates in the nasty situation of having to choose between State and Federal law.

It is terrible that these women's safety is in jeopardy. Next comes the ladies who do cams from their bedrooms and have to put home addresses on their sites. Sadly, the DOJ cares little about these "cyberwhores".

--art

[quote=Mr. Blue]Any particular reason why you are being so agressive? I was under the impression that this board was one of the few places left for intelligent discussion, free from attacks.

I think that some people might be a little more sensitive to the issue if a loved one were a performer. Unfortunately, models are often considered to be at the bottom of the food chain in this industry.

[quote=emmanuelle]Umm, how am I attacking you?

I personally thought your first post was way too severe on sponsors that are giving out this information. I've not personally attacked you in any way, shape, or form.

Intelligent discussion and counterpoints have been given. Just because you don't like the points doesn't mean that I'm attacking with my responses.

The agression I percieved had nothing to do with your points, but with the delivery.
Have a nice day.

LOL

Sorry if I offended you...next time I promise to let you level attacks against sponsors, many of whom are the most decent people you'll find, and I'll let you call them morally reprehensible and unethical.

Don't cast stones if you live in a glass house.

Good day :D

Mr. Blue, sorry to butt in here, but just in case you don't already know. Emma *is* a sponsor, (see her sig) and I might add, one with an impecable reputation.

I also happen to agree with her, that sponsors giving out model information to affiliates is a very very bad idea.

That's fine, everyone is welcome to an opinion. She's a sponsor, she's choosing to run her business that way, that's fine. I just don't agree with her that the sponsors that are giving out the ids are morally reprehensible.

So I gave a counterpoint. That's all. I didn't attack and wasn't aggressive. If you make a statement like that, you should be prepared that some people will disagree with it and that's all I did. I disagreed.

In my warped little opinion, no one other than the photographer and/or content houses should ever have see the models' ids. It's ridiculous that the U.S. g'ment thinks that this is a good idea. There is no reason for we end users to have the ids. All business decisions stand on trust. Those of us who purchase content need to trust the content producers the same we would trust a contractor to build our homes. You don't stand next to a framer to ensure that he's using the correct size and quantitiy of nails to build a wall. You trust that he is following area's building codes.

I don't disagree with that...however, it is the law here in the states...hopefully it will be overturned. If it isn't though sponsors will have to make difficult decisions.

I'm honestly not going to sit here and criticize a sponsor for making a business decision regarding model ids when they're already readily available on the net.

Oh, and just so everyone can understand my position isn't coming from an ivory tower...I'm going to be posting my home addy on the net come June 23rd...so will thousands of other small webmasters. This isn't just about model security, but it's a fact that if you want to be compliant, you have to follow the rules.

btw UW, don't stop over at my house in the middle of the night at wearing a speedo and carrying a tub of Crisco. I'm just not ready for that.

Come on UW, be serious. That would be way to simple and make way to much sense! It'll never happen.

Just so everyone knows - I don't own any speedos. (yet)