This whole directnic locking down a domain thing

Carrie · 2007-01-02, 03:34 PM

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.
Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18.

What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever.

Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information.
The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

GonZo · 2007-01-02, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.
Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18.

What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever.

Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information.
The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

Carrie why do you have a hard on for Direct Nic and Buff?

Carrie · 2007-01-02, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GonZo

Carrie why do you have a hard on for Direct Nic and Buff?

With the number of times you've already tried to get people over to your board in this thread, I'm surprised you're even still here to see this.

GonZo · 2007-01-02, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

With the number of times you've already tried to get people over to your board in this thread, I'm surprised you're even still here to see this.

Still doesnt answer my question.

I see your helping me out on NetPond with the other though! Thanks!!!

Again why do you have a hard on for DirectNic and Buff?

Windy City · 2007-01-02, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.
Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18.

How does it not stand? Are you saying since they didn't ask for every document it makes it okay? If you're going to investigate CP, atleast do it right and request all the documents. So are you saying you think registrars should ask for the ids of all the girls on your sites?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever.

I don't think many people were upset with the legal side of things and whether it broke any privacy laws. I think people were upset that a registrar was playing police and holding a domain hostage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information.
The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

Comparing the feds rights to the registrars rights to investigate a domain is kind of silly. The feds are the law, they arrest people, they are the ones that can put you in jail. A registrar is just a registrar. They sell a service and that's it. The feds do not need to give us a choice to agree or not agree, they just follow the laws they are given by the government that we elect.

While I agree with you that DN had a TOS that allows them to do it, I don't think it's bad that other adult webmasters know about this. There is nothing wrong with the spreading of information and opinions. Those who don't mind registrars policing their websites will continue to register with DirectNic and be happy. Those who are worried about it or don't want the hassle will register elsewhere.

Carrie · 2007-01-02, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windy City

How does it not stand?

Quote:

Comparing the feds rights to the registrars rights to investigate a domain is kind of silly.

That is exactly how it doesn't stand.
Because someone else tried to compare the two, and I was showing how blatantly different what the Feds would ask for and what DN asked for is. Thanks for proving my point and answering your own question.

Quote:

While I agree with you that DN had a TOS that allows them to do it, I don't think it's bad that other adult webmasters know about this. There is nothing wrong with the spreading of information and opinions.

I never said it was bad, or there was anything wrong with it. So this one confuses me... but I agree with you.

Useless · 2007-01-02, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand.

Why - because you disagree with it? Too bad. The argument stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrie

The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.

Buck up little camper. Your registrar will save you (if they don't put you in their own private company prison first).

2007-01-02, 03:34 PM	#1
Carrie Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer? Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 68	The argument about "feds requesting documents = bad, registrars requesting documents = okay" doesn't stand. Feds request full 2257 documentation. That's full ID with name, address, age, social security number, birthdate, eye color - everything. Also signed documents showing the model's consent to be photographed for this particular set of pictures at this particular time and stating that she's over 18. What DN requested was an ID with only a picture and birthdate showing. No privacy laws violated in the US (where the owner resides, the site is hosted, and where it was registered - so don't even start with the Canadian law thing), no federal laws violated as it was not a request for 2257 documentation, no laws violated whatsoever. Also, a big difference between Feds/2257 and DN/id request is that when you register a name with DN, you agree to a contract giving them the power to ask for this information. The feds never gave us the choice to agree or not agree - they simply slammed down the law and forced us to adhere to it.