View Full Version : One nagging question
Dravyk
06-23-2005, 11:47 PM
... what did the government get out of the FSC deal that they agreed to it? What's in it for them?
(Long day, g'night folks!)
You mean other than potential access to the full FSC member list?
Go after someone who isnt an FSC member, get them to cop a plea, the government gets to prove their new regulation actually work, in a court of law.
Go after someone on the FSC member list, charge them with something, have the full list unsealed.
Its win-win for the DOJ.
TheEnforcer
06-24-2005, 12:10 AM
Good question dravyk. I would also wonder how secure is the list? IE- is the deal that the DOJ NEVER EVER gets their hands on the list or what?
Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 07:57 PM
You mean other than potential access to the full FSC member list?
Go after someone who isnt an FSC member, get them to cop a plea, the government gets to prove their new regulation actually work, in a court of law.
Go after someone on the FSC member list, charge them with something, have the full list unsealed.
Its win-win for the DOJ.
why would they need the FSC members list to achieve this? they still would have to do inspections and i would guess that the assumption would be the FSC members are more likely to be in compliance than the average idiot in this business. the government does not go after long shots.. they go after slam dunks. having a list of FSC members is not proof of anything and its not meaningful information that could not be obtained through other means.
no one can just charge someone with something without verifying that a crime was committed and a law was broken.... correct?
your logic is pretty flawed.
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 23 2005, 08:11 PM
I would also wonder how secure is the list? IE- is the deal that the DOJ NEVER EVER gets their hands on the list or what?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359
According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DoJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity's name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.
A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, Saturday June 25, 2005.
At no time will the DoJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal.
Originally posted by JR+Jun 23 2005, 09:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jun 23 2005, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 07:57 PM
You mean other than potential access to the full FSC member list?
Go after someone who isnt an FSC member, get them to cop a plea, the government gets to prove their new regulation actually work, in a court of law.
Go after someone on the FSC member list, charge them with something, have the full list unsealed.
Its win-win for the DOJ.
why would they need the FSC members list to achieve this? they still would have to do inspections and i would guess that the assumption would be the FSC members are more likely to be in compliance than the average idiot in this business. the government does not go after long shots.. they go after slam dunks. having a list of FSC members is not proof of anything and its not meaningful information that could not be obtained through other means.
no one can just charge someone with something without verifying that a crime was committed and a law was broken.... correct?
your logic is pretty flawed. [/b][/quote]
No.
The assumtion is that anyone joining the FSC in recent days, have done so BECAUSE they arent already in compliance, at least, thats what i would be thinking were i Mr Gonzales and they are only joining because they want 'protection'.
Oh and they would want to unseal the FSC memberlist because, if one person on that list ISNT compliant, the chances are, others wont be either.
Of course you can be charged of a crime without any evidence, especially a mom+pop webmaster who doesnt have the ability or cash to fight such a charge.
Just because they are charged however, it doesnt mean that a conviction will follow, that would be decided by the court system, unless a plea was made ;)
This FSC memberlist is going to become vital IMHO to the DOJ over the coming weeks, why wouldnt they try and find a list of persons on the list?
Also, as a side note, why hasnt the FULL agreement been published yet? Over the past few weeks every other document has been published, in full, yet this crucially important document for FSC members, hasnt been, why? The pattern got broken of information disclosure with this single item, something just doesnt smell right.
Timon
06-24-2005, 01:44 AM
Lee that's an interesting point. Why pay FSC anything if you are already 100% compliant?
Dravyk
06-24-2005, 01:45 AM
(Ok, fine, still not asleep yet, anyhow, damnit ...)
To get back to the question -- excluding Lee's theories which could be their own thread -- what does the government get out of this???
Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 23 2005, 07:48 PM
... what did the government get out of the FSC deal that they agreed to it? What's in it for them?
I think the DOJ want this thing to hold in court, so they will do alot to work with the "responsible adult community" (.xxx logic), which will get this thing to look more legit, and not like a take over by the goverment (.xxx tactic)
There will always be a test case, when new laws/rules are made - the first one always get special attention - after that they will pull up the train wagons, and transport us to the camps :zoinks:
FSC is not the bad guy here - towards your energy against those who are coming after you :ph34r:
Oh - and I see some similarities between 2257 and .xxx tld, thats why I put in the (xxx) ;-)
Timon
06-24-2005, 02:02 AM
I think the DOJ want this thing to hold in court, so they will do alot to work with the "responsible adult community" (.xxx logic), which will get this thing to look more legit, and not like a take over by the goverment (.xxx tactic)
What's responsible about not being compliant by the deadline? ;-)
FSC is not the bad guy here - towards your energy against those who are coming after you
Right, just a bunch of lawyers who need to feed their kids, nothing new ;-)
Originally posted by Timon@Jun 23 2005, 10:03 PM
What's responsible about not being compliant by the deadline? ;-)
From the FSC press release:
the FSC encourages everyone to try to comply with the law to the extent that it is possible
DOJ will probably not hold it against the FSC, if some of the FSC members are not listing ;-))
Originally posted by Lee@Jun 23 2005, 09:38 PM
No.
The assumtion is that anyone joining the FSC in recent days, have done so BECAUSE they arent already in compliance, at least, thats what i would be thinking were i Mr Gonzales and they are only joining because they want 'protection'.
Oh and they would want to unseal the FSC memberlist because, if one person on that list ISNT compliant, the chances are, others wont be either.
i would say that is YOUR assumption and its unfounded and incorrect. you have to be in compliance no matter what... today. right now... its the law. the FSC went out of their way to tell everyone they have to be in compliance.
Originally posted by Timon@Jun 23 2005, 10:03 PM
FSC is not the bad guy here - towards your energy against those who are coming after you
Right, just a bunch of lawyers who need to feed their kids, nothing new ;-)
If there were no laws, then there would be no lawyers... to get the number of lawyers down, then we need fewer laws, and to get fewer laws, then we need to reduce the amount of politicians :heil:
Timon
06-24-2005, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Rolo+Jun 24 2005, 01:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jun 24 2005, 01:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Timon@Jun 23 2005, 10:03 PM
FSC is not the bad guy here - towards your energy against those who are coming after you
Right, just a bunch of lawyers who need to feed their kids, nothing new ;-)
If there were no laws, then there would be no lawyers... to get the number of lawyers down, then we need fewer laws, and to get fewer laws, then we need to reduce the amount of politicians :heil: [/b][/quote]
we could also just round up the lawyers and sink them to the bottom of the ocean where they belong ;-)
Originally posted by Timon+Jun 23 2005, 10:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Timon @ Jun 23 2005, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 24 2005, 01:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Timon@Jun 23 2005, 10:03 PM
FSC is not the bad guy here - towards your energy against those who are coming after you
Right, just a bunch of lawyers who need to feed their kids, nothing new ;-)
If there were no laws, then there would be no lawyers... to get the number of lawyers down, then we need fewer laws, and to get fewer laws, then we need to reduce the amount of politicians :heil:
we could also just round up the lawyers and sink them to the bottom of the ocean where they belong ;-) [/b][/quote]
I´m easy to make a compromise with... lets get rid of the lawyers and politicians - lots of room in the oceans ;-))
Originally posted by JR+Jun 23 2005, 10:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jun 23 2005, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 23 2005, 09:38 PM
No.
The assumtion is that anyone joining the FSC in recent days, have done so BECAUSE they arent already in compliance, at least, thats what i would be thinking were i Mr Gonzales and they are only joining because they want 'protection'.
Oh and they would want to unseal the FSC memberlist because, if one person on that list ISNT compliant, the chances are, others wont be either.
i would say that is YOUR assumption and its unfounded and incorrect. you have to be in compliance no matter what... today. right now... its the law. the FSC went out of their way to tell everyone they have to be in compliance. [/b][/quote]
That is EXACTLY my point, irrespective of whether or not you are an FSC member, you HAD to be in compliance today yet, many people are openly posting on publicly accessible message forums that they ARENT compliant and, to remain 'protected' they will be joining the FSC.
Just to clarify my point here..
1) Webmasters arent compliant to the current 2257 regs
2) Those same webmasters are joining the FSC for protection.
Now go back to my earlier statement about only having to prove ONE member of the FSC is breaking the law to get that list of ALL members unsealed :okthumb:
Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 23 2005, 09:46 PM
(Ok, fine, still not asleep yet, anyhow, damnit ...)
To get back to the question -- excluding Lee's theories which could be their own thread -- what does the government get out of this???
Fish... Lots of them ;)
Newton
06-24-2005, 07:32 AM
Is it possibly that they could try and tack on what they see as legitimate .xxx tlds, or am i just being cunty ;)
Originally posted by Newton@Jun 24 2005, 12:33 PM
Is it possibly that they could try and tack on what they see as legitimate .xxx tlds, or am i just being cunty ;)
Anything is a possibility the way things are flowing these days...
...and you don't get cunty, you're too calm :)
Newton
06-24-2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Trev+Jun 24 2005, 05:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Trev @ Jun 24 2005, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Newton@Jun 24 2005, 12:33 PM
Is it possibly that they could try and tack on what they see as legitimate .xxx tlds, or am i just being cunty ;)
Anything is a possibility the way things are flowing these days...
...and you don't get cunty, you're too calm :) [/b][/quote]
Psychotic sociopaths are mate lol
Originally posted by Newton+Jun 24 2005, 03:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Newton @ Jun 24 2005, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Trev@Jun 24 2005, 05:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Newton@Jun 24 2005, 12:33 PM
Is it possibly that they could try and tack on what they see as legitimate .xxx tlds, or am i just being cunty ;)
Anything is a possibility the way things are flowing these days...
...and you don't get cunty, you're too calm :)
Psychotic sociopaths are mate lol [/b][/quote]
Allegedly ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.