Okay, how would you investigate it?Quote:
Originally Posted by IntenseCash.com
How would you determine if the content in question was, or was not cp?
Regards,
Lee
Printable View
Okay, how would you investigate it?Quote:
Originally Posted by IntenseCash.com
How would you determine if the content in question was, or was not cp?
Regards,
Lee
Mark has investigated affiliates before, like with Mike18 that he promotes... he asked for ID's and even posted them here I believe when we were all discussing the legality of that site. I think we got the model release form too. But again, you're getting off topic Lee. The freezing of domains by the registrar is the issue we're all concerned about here, the cp site is the catalyst, not the main issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Squirt,Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
You seem to be under the misconception that one of the things being discussed is seperate of the other, they arent.
I'll let you in to a secret...
Before an affiliate gets terminated.. Their account gets put 'on hold' (or locked to make sure funds dont get released).
This is no different to what DirectNic did, they put the account on hold whilst investigating a report of child porn (which it was) then since then terminated the domain, which they have to do under law in order to not be guilty of aiding and abetting child porn transactions.
Im sure some of the keyboard lawyers on GFY have spun the hell out of this so they very well may be arguing over something else over there.
At the end of the day, a child porn site has been closed down, this isnt about doing the 'legal' thing, its about doing the RIGHT thing. Not to mention, we dont even know if DirectNic were in touch with any law enforcement agencies, right now all we know is what has been said by a proven child pornographer.
Again, its a sad state of affairs when a child pornographers site is closed down and everyone bitches about the method used to get it done, just be happy that there is one less child porn site on the web.
I for one am glad his site was shut down and access to his domain/s was taken away.
Regards,
Lee
k, here's my 2 cents.
CCBill terminating a site for a compliance (or perceived compliance) issue is a no brainer. CCBill is responsible to the cardmember association and can be subject to gigantic fines if they violate the (sometimes byzantine) regulations. Further, Visa's regulations do, in fact, have leeway in them that allows for actions to be taken based on "appearance" or "impression" rather than fact. Additionally, CCBill has a close ongoing relationship with its websites as the payment processor.
DirectNIC is almost completely removed from the process. They are essentially a "vendor" of domain names, and nothing in ICANN regs, as far as I know, provides for termination or suspension of domain names for any reason whatsoever without due process, so DirectNIC does not have a "higher entity" that can fine it or otherwise cause it problems.
Further, DirectNIC *may* have an obligation to investigate and terminate domains on which illegal activity is taking place... but it is also in a position of liability. If it terminates or suspends a domain without just cause and fair warning, regardless of the terms of service, it potentially exposes itself to liability for losses, yet I don't think it has any liability for continuing to host for a questionable domain unless it has reason to *know* (not suspect) there is a problem, and even in these cases, I would think that if the content is simply being linked rather than hosted on the domain in question, it would first want to take the reasonable step of saying "here's the problem, please remove the offending link" in the same way that ccbill does when it finds a violation.
DirectNIC, based on the TOS posted, does not, in my opinion, have the right to demand IDs, and if it suspends services based on lack of IDs provided (particularly when providing ID info to a non-government entity is a criminal violation in California) then it is probably financially liable for the losses incurred.
I haven't actually visited, but am relying on others' descriptions of the linked site in question. Based on that, there were other ways this could have been resolved. The way DirectNIC handled the situation, even given the rather obvious nature of the problem with the linked site, in my opinion gives rise to substantial liability on DirectNIC's side.
Of course I'm no lawyer and I could be full of shit. But it makes sense based on what I know.
Oh and one other thing that hasnt been mentioned yet..
This isnt just a potential criminal case here, this could also end up as a civil case had DirectNic not taken any action.
Kind of like what happened here not so long ago....
http://news.com.com/Suit+accuses+Goo...3-6069014.html
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Lee I am NOT talking about a CP site. I'm NOT talking about GFY. You keep spinning everything to this agenda about CP and GFY! Yeah everything is related in the universe we get that.
I'm talking about something very specific, registrars putting domains on hold and the specific implications that can have on the legitimate people in our industry as there are no safeguards to keep registrars from going amuk and demanding to much, or demanding things that put us in a legally liable position. Pretty simple.
Enough time wasted
Why would you even think that is going to happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Can you name a single instance where any registrar, anywhere has put a domain on hold for the reasons you are concerned about?
Im guessing, using your flawed logic, we should all be worried about martians landing and abducting all of us every Wednesday, afterall planes fly every other Wednesday so it is only reasonable to ASSume that sometime in the future, Martians may start abducting people on Wednesdays also, even though we have no proof that it has ever, or will ever happen as yet.
Being concerned about something that has never happened doesnt really get anyone anywhere, lets just stick to what we know, DirectNic successfully took down a child porn site, thats great for the industry as a whole.
Regards,
Lee
Here is the Free Speech Coalition's View Of The Matter......
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F....asp?coid=1014
There was some clear-cut cp on that site itself. It's just karma.