Liability?

emmanuelle · 2005-06-16, 12:24 PM

[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.

Mr. Blue · 2005-06-16, 12:31 PM

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.

ArtWilliams · 2005-06-16, 12:41 PM

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

emmanuelle · 2005-06-16, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by artwilliams

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

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.

Mr. Blue · 2005-06-16, 12:38 PM

[quote=emmanuelle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blue

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

QUOTE]
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.

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.

emmanuelle · 2005-06-16, 01:08 PM

[quote=Mr. Blue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

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.

Mr. Blue · 2005-06-16, 01:13 PM

[quote=emmanuelle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

2005-06-16, 12:24 PM	#1
emmanuelle 0100011101100101011001010 1101011001000000100001101 1010000110100101100011 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,441	[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.

2005-06-16, 12:31 PM	#2
Mr. Blue Searching for Jimmy Hoffa Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 771	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.

2005-06-16, 12:41 PM	#3
ArtWilliams You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 6,244	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