New 2257 inspection against FSC injunction

Printable View

10-10-2006, 09:04 PM
deanb

New 2257 inspection against FSC injunction

Here is the article on xbiz

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=17575
10-10-2006, 10:34 PM
Squirt

You have to wonder, with how sporadic these inspection reports have been, if there aren't a lot of companies that haven't passed, and not wanting to lose business, haven't brought it public.

It doesn't make logical sense to have whole teams of these inspectors just doing 5 inspections so far over a few months. Something isn't adding up.. what are your thoughts?
10-11-2006, 12:38 AM
basschick

we don't actually know there are teams of inspectors. i read this as a quote from someone who was inspected, and he could have misunderstood or even been mislead.

my personal belief, however, IS that there are a number of inspections we know nothing about. some may have been asked to keep it quiet, some may have things still up in the air and not want to talk about it - and some companies aren't involved in our webmaster communities at all.
10-11-2006, 12:42 AM
Lee

Quote:

Originally Posted by basschick

and some companies aren't involved in our webmaster communities at all.

They are the ones that worry me more than anything else.

Because these people are most likely to be the ones who have a 'voice' that is used to 'speak' for the industry without our knowledge.

Regards,

Lee
10-11-2006, 02:18 AM
Squirt

You're right. We actually don't know a lot about inspections, who's doing them, how many, etc. Hell most of us don't know all that 2257, and now 4472, entails. Yet we are expected to follow ambiguous laws and expect a knock on the door at any time.

Isn't it ironic that in America people are afraid of search and seazure who've not been proven of doing anything wrong and who's only known activity is producing adult content?

I'm not going to sit here and bitch and moan about it. We all know how wrong it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by basschick

we don't actually know there are teams of inspectors. i read this as a quote from someone who was inspected, and he could have misunderstood or even been mislead.

my personal belief, however, IS that there are a number of inspections we know nothing about. some may have been asked to keep it quiet, some may have things still up in the air and not want to talk about it - and some companies aren't involved in our webmaster communities at all.
10-11-2006, 08:45 AM
basschick

actually the guys yesterday don't produce adult content - they are secondary producers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirt

Isn't it ironic that in America people are afraid of search and seazure who've not been proven of doing anything wrong and who's only known activity is producing adult content?
10-11-2006, 09:05 AM
collegeboyslive

wow, I sure hope that everyone wasnt counting onf the FSC injunction and didnt bother to get records anyway for their secondry producer stuff. We are members of the FSC but years bace we started collecing the secondry producer ID's so we are ready.

ALSO a warning. Webmasters. take a day and go though your FILE diectory of your site. look at all the images in an expoloro or file window. ifm like me over the years you have changed pages uploaded and downloaded stuff to your sites, you may have a bunch of stuff in a forgotton unlinked directory that you once used but changed and forgot to remove those images. cause IF they check you and find you not in compliance they CAN take your webserver and ANY images on that machine that you dont have 2257 docs for , if sexual, could result in a charge even if its not generally acessable to the public, especially if soemone could acess it if they knew the exact URL.