Printable View
Lets say I have a USA webmaster client who sets up on offshore webhosts to avoid this 2257 stuff. I know that the DOJ can still go in and demand the docos and fine him and maybe even jail him, but would they still be able to demand the web hosting company shut down his site? After all, its for reasons that are not legally recognized outside of the USA.
What do you guys think?
cheers,
Luke
I was hoping u would ask this question and I was dying to kick it around with you but ........ with all the spooks I didnt want to mention it till you did.
Can they force you to shut the foreign webmasters site down ? Thats a damn gray area -- UUNET tells me NO ! not until the laws modified again to include such verbage at the present hosts are exempted from the newly revised law BUT<>, Recently the FBI shutdown and redirected a a popular torrent site and slapped up BIG FBI logos and a story explaining why the site was shut down -- I think its safe to say if they can do that - dont be shocked if they do demand such a thing. That was the first time in all my years of running a hosting company I have ever seen the FBI take such drastic steps to make a scene on the net.{{ www.elitetorrents.org }} And be sure not to miss that yea it says DOJ and Dept of Homeland security on it ......... now wtf does homeland security have to do with copyrights HA indeed one more example of that dept has too much power imo.
My reason for asking is this ......
I gather you are yourself in the USA ./....... if that is actually the case - no matter if you have those clients on a server in the netherlands or not if the DOJ decides to play hardball and they find you providing dns to that unit from the USA ,..... I would ASSUME its gonna work just like the spam thing......... In that since you are physically a us company they can subpeona your company records and demand you provide the clients information just as they do with spammers ........
Ive had this happen already and while you have the right to withhold the information doing so places the company in extreme danger as you can be found liable {at least in the case of spam/uce} I am using this as an example only because I have no other frame of reference as to the federal govs past incursions into our hosting companies records...
They even servered subpeona for customers we had operating out of UK servers ...... So is it off limits ? well probably not if your companies main offices are in the usa.
Can you setup a corporation in amsterdam quickly to resolve this issue - well in my research of past dealings like this {not with out company} I find that if the US gov wants something they will use any means necessary to get it so dont be shocked even if you have a foreign corp setup if they come knocking with a subpeona - they can and they may try =--
The best way around it in theory would be to have your corp setup in the netherlands - taking payments from a processor there and maintain no records in the usa and keep them as totally seperate divisions to prevent probing by the us gov.....
However this is really really fishing deep to ASSUME they are going to do any of this and I hope if they have time to do all this crap that they can go find Bin Laden and bring him to justice......
Have they stopped spam emails ????? HELL NO spam increased 400% at our company after the CAN SPAM crap law went into effect -
Are 2257 and can spam related no not really but the FTC is playing HELL trying to enforce that law the only reason some of the spammers were arrested was because AOHELL had their hands in it so deep with earthlink and msn now that the hoopla has ended they are all burried in spam again and lookin around for help... :signhere: Did this law work HELL NO.
Will 2257 work ? IMHO probably not but we wont know till they try to enforce it a few times.
Thas my take on it mr chili
The only way to get offshore protection is to REALLY get offshore. If you think that hosting offshore or setting up a foreign corporation will protect you, then you are wrong. You simply cannot expect to set up a fascade and expect that to protect you from the long arm of law.
If, however, you pick up your company, move you and your company to another country, move your billing and bank accounts, and completely, honestly, and totally relocate to another country, THEN you do have a good chance at being outside the jurisdiction of US law. However, there are certain citizenship requirements for you to STAY in the foreign country plus a lot of other small details involved in moving to another country.
If it sounds to good or too easy to be true, it is.
;)I believe thats basically what I said in a breathier version :argue:Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Nice to hear it from a man of law tho :coffee:
No way, mate! I am in Australia and run my buiness from here, my processing is all done through the EU and my banks are all outside of the USA too. I am not and have never been a US citizen or passport holder either, so I am not worried about those funky rules either.Quote:
I gather you are yourself in the USA
As Chad says, I am REALLY offshore.
And the interesting thing is that Australian privacy rules force me to keep my client data (including names addresses and such) in the STRICTEST of confidentiality. So if the US DOJ came pounding on my Aussie door demanding to know the identity of clients on my Netherlands servers, I would have to say "sorry, no can do".
Interesting, isn't it?
cheers,
Luke
...and after having to travel through the USA when I flew to Panama in November, I would rather never go through that customs nightmare again.
(no I did not get probed, but I did get my fingerprints and photo digitally recorded for all eternity after waiting for over 2 hours in the customs queue).
cheers,
Luke
:kitten: I caught just a minimal verbage of these new 2257 regulations but one thing that did catch my eye was this: "Hosting Companies are not reasonably held responsible for their clients content in which they do not actively monitor." I take this to mean that if a hosting company has and does pursue illegal content on client sites, and has shown an enforcement of TOS, this would mean the hosting company does or would have knowledge. Actively enforcing your TOS would set a precedence. This to me says that Hosting Co's are in the clear with reguard to what their clients comply with. :egg:
BTW... Someone give me the link to the new 2257 Regs so I can read... My palms have been sweating all day and I been looking out the front door! LOL (Catching up in the 12th hour!)
I thought your stuff was all run overseas but the actual servers were in the states.. have you changed things around.. or added a new service for Netherland hosting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
You got that right. A MAJOR pain in the ass to relocate everything overseas, get a valid working Visa... etc. etc. It's expensive, time consuming and not funQuote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
yes that means that if you host on my servers I have no direct control over your sites and therefore have no responsibilities as far as keeping 2257 documents in order, etc.Quote:
Hosting Companies are not reasonably held responsible for their clients content
but they can still present me with a "demand to shutdown the site", and on US-based hosting I would have to comply or risk having the DOJ walk into the datacenter and unplug the server. However, I can't see how they can place such a demand on hosting that is not in their country.
cheers,
Luke
Yes, see http://www.chilihost.nl :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
cheers,
Luke
neags, if you check out this thread it has it all listed and the link too I believe
http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...ead.php?t=9994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
Luke, surely Chilihost does have a TOS for thier clients. The question here is do you actively enforce it or shut down clients for violating your TOS. If you actively enforce your TOS, then yes, you would have knowledge of what's going on. If you don't monitor or enforce your TOS, you're in the blind and have "no knowledge". :wtf:
check your pm's. hope the links help.
btw, i've been told hosts are not at this time responsible. they don't have to keep track of everyone's content as the content police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neags78805
TOS are in place to protect us when we are required to shut down a problem site - I do NOT know what content is on my servers and more importantly I CAN NOT / WILL NOT control what is being uploaded by my clients. That would be like asking a bank to be responsible for the contents of all it's private storage boxes, they don't know whats in them but they do have rules in place to protect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by neags78805
cheers,
Luke
Luke, then as far as I can gather, if you don't pursue or actively monitor content by your clients, you as a host are in the clear in these new 2257 regs. However, if you've showed a pattern of viewing client content and shutting the client down without a demand from law enforcement, you would be showing that you do actively control your clients content and enforce your TOS.
Keep your shades on :cool: And don't go lookin' till the wind blows one way or the other.
Looks good but DUDE your Chili on that page looks all dry and wilted... like a shriveled wiener! ha haQuote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
Do you do site backup? Is your cheapest plan $325? Looks like you have a lot of great options there :groovy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by neags78805
Exactly
Twenty-four commenters commented that the exclusion of providers of web-hosting services who do not manage the content of the site or service is vague and may be under-inclusive because some services manage or control certain website content, e.g., advertisements, but not the sexually explicit content. According to the commenters, it is similarly unclear whether editing content only for copyright infringement purposes would constitute control of content. The Department adopts this comment. The exclusion of providers of web- hosting services who reasonably cannot manage the content of the site will be clarified to exclude providers of web-hosting services who reasonably cannot manage the sexually explicit content of the site (for either technical or contractual reasons).
while this is a grey area it does not mention anywhere that they have the authority to obtain infor directly from the host...