DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[tony404]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Try and wrap your head around this, brain of America. Now pay attention....models are employees. Privacy laws apply to anyone who you hire and have a social insurance number for. If this is another garden path gotcha kind of thing, just piss off. Because it is obvious for what the laws are intended. Read what Lady Mischief wrote and if you are having a real problem figuring that out, there is always google. Nice to see you have cleaned up your vocabulary though. That is a step in the right direction.

I am getting weary of having to explain the obvious to you. I am beginning to change my opinion of you from ignorance to stupidity. I certainly hope it isn't actually both.

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

[softball]

Originally Posted by tony404

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

As I posted earlier, I wasn't totally sure. However, I would guess, as in most of these grey areas, that there would be a few legal opinons on that. Certainly not one I would like to challenge in a court of law. I would err on the side of caution rather than gamble with a jail sentence.
Edit: Also would any registrar accept something that had been photoshopped or altered to hide anything. Prolly not.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Try and wrap your head around this, brain of America. Now pay attention....models are employees. Privacy laws apply to anyone who you hire and have a social insurance number for. If this is another garden path gotcha kind of thing, just piss off. Because it is obvious for what the laws are intended. Read what Lady Mischief wrote and if you are having a real problem figuring that out, there is always google. Nice to see you have cleaned up your vocabulary though. That is a step in the right direction.

I am getting weary of having to explain the obvious to you. I am beginning to change my opinion of you from ignorance to stupidity. I certainly hope it isn't actually both.

Originally Posted by LM

Anyone other than a government agent, or someone who has through release been given permission to recieve the ID, or been handed it personally from the legal ID holder, CANNOT LEGALLY request that ID in Canada, and if someone were to provide it, they would be in Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and would be subject to jailtime in excess of 10+ years.

Ok, I read what LM wrote and it doesn't say it applies only to models and employees. So, I guess looking up a canadian id in the whois is illegal because that is a non governmental agency making the request and a third party fulfilling that request.

edited in:Oh dammit I almost forgot....

You stupid little assfuck

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Ok, I read what LM wrote and it doesn't say it applies only to models and employees. So, I guess looking up a canadian id in the whois is illegal because that is a non governmental agency making the request and a third party fulfilling that request.

edited in:Oh dammit I almost forgot....

You stupid little assfuck

Now you are just ranting. And you are reverting to your foul mouth. As for stupid? I think not.

[gonzo]

This is a damn good debate.

No one here worrying about me fitting into cars, calling people snitches or worried if I have access....

While I admite DirectNic's ethical stance Im not sure how all of this will shake out.

This does bring to light a lot of the proposed 2257 changes specifically secondary producer issues.

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Then there are several stalking issues that stem from this if you have to give up the models ID to any secondary producer.

Im not certain where DirectNic is going with all of this. Its certainly an issue that all need to stay informed of.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Bottom line. If DirectNIC were to request the same information from a Canadian company and hold their domains in lock, said Canadian company would spend more time in jail/pay more fines than if they could somehow be extradited to the US and IF they were guilty, be charged under any kind of 2257 offenses. Canada is NOT the only country that has laws this strict, and I'm quite sure there are correlating US state laws that cover privacy/identify theft issues.

Which is probably why DirectNic wouldn't ask for illegal information from a Canadian company.

I personally don't see how ANYONE can correlate identity theft with a picture and birthdate. I can send you a copy of my driver's license with nothing showing but my picture and birthdate and I highly doubt you'd be able to steal my identity - or even know my real name.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

This is a damn good debate.

No one here worrying about me fitting into cars, calling people snitches or worried if I have access....

While I admite DirectNic's ethical stance Im not sure how all of this will shake out.

This does bring to light a lot of the proposed 2257 changes specifically secondary producer issues.

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Then there are several stalking issues that stem from this if you have to give up the models ID to any secondary producer.

Im not certain where DirectNic is going with all of this. Its certainly an issue that all need to stay informed of.

I really think they are trying to move out of the adult business and make a clean break.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, the whois databases aren't allowed to list canadian names and addresses?

Read what I wrote again then perhaps revisit this statement. I made it pretty clear.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

For instance its illegal to copy a drivers license in the state of Georgia.

Since when? When I bought property with cash they copied my license and when I bought my house and later refinanced my house they copied my license - done by attorneys whom I'm pretty sure know the laws.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, the canadian privacy laws only apply to models and employees?

I am trying to understand here great constitutional master.

No, they apply to any person who has a valid and legal government-issued ID. Any Joe off the street is entitled to the same rights under the privacy laws, and NOBODY aside from a government agent, a person who has been allowed the ID under a signed release from the ID holder for that person to have it, or the ID holder handing it out themselves to that person, can ID be sent, distributed or shared in any way legally. Period.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Since when? When I bought property with cash they copied my license and when I bought my house and later refinanced my house they copied my license - done by attorneys whom I'm pretty sure know the laws.

Look it up. I guarantee you it is the case.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Look it up. I guarantee you it is the case.

You made the statement - YOU look it up. I have a puppy chewing up all my furniture I have to deal with.

[LadyMischief]

Real world practical example. In Canada, NOBODY except a GOVERNMENT agency can ask for your ID when you are presenting yourself to apply for a service etc, or keep it on record in any way.

A lot of Canadians are not even aware of this as PIPA is relatively new, but the laws were brought into effect when personal information from Canadians was being sent to US processing centers, and the information was ending up on the fax machines of scrapyards, etc. This law only applies to Adult because of our requirements to hold ID's. We have to make special provisions for these things in our model releases, not only to hold the ID on record, but to be able to distribute it to SPECIFIC parties (such as for exclusive content clients who act as their own custodian of records). If a Canadian fills out their registration information, for example, they are VOLUNTEERING that information FIRSTHAND, NOBODY can decide what happens to their information legally after that point without that person's permission.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

You made the statement - YOU look it up. I have a puppy chewing up all my furniture I have to deal with.

I already know its the case.

Your the one disputing it not me.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by tony404

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

That would be considered personal information (especially if it is an actual scan or copy of the ID, BIG NONO) and would be illegal under PIPA regulations in Canada, and multiple international and even state regulations in the US.

[Peaches]

Well, a quick Google shows Kennesaw University asking for a copy of your Georgia driver's license. So far, that's a state university and 4 lawyers who are saying it's OK.

Feel free to show otherwise

Edited to add - it seems all the state colleges require a copy of your Georgia Driver's license. Maybe you need to let them know that's illegal. Need the names and numbers of my attorneys too?

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Ok, I read what LM wrote and it doesn't say it applies only to models and employees. So, I guess looking up a canadian id in the whois is illegal because that is a non governmental agency making the request and a third party fulfilling that request.

edited in:Oh dammit I almost forgot....

You stupid little assfuck

Is whois information a person's ID? Cool, I finally have a driver's license then? :P

[softball]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Is whois information a person's ID? Cool, I finally have a driver's license then? :P

My thoughts exactly.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Well, a quick Google shows Kennesaw University asking for a copy of your Georgia driver's license. So far, that's a state university and 4 lawyers who are saying it's OK.

Feel free to show otherwise

The laws will differ state-to-state, and if I'm not wrong, schools are by extension government (or at least partially government-funded) agencies who are ruled and regulated by government agencies.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

The laws will differ state-to-state, and if I'm not wrong, schools are by extension government (or at least partially government-funded) agencies who are ruled and regulated by government agencies.

True, but then why are my attorneys getting it too? Doncha think at least ONE of the 4 would know the state law?? 2 were in the last 2 months, BTW. The other two were 5 and 4 years ago.

[LadyMischief]

How about we remove all doubt and I just post from the Act itself:

Personal information

Personal information includes any factual or subjective information, recorded or not, about an identifiable individual. This includes information in any form, such as:

* age, name, ID numbers, income, ethnic origin, or blood type;
* opinions, evaluations, comments, social status, or disciplinary actions; and
* employee files, credit records, loan records, medical records, existence of a dispute between a consumer and a merchant, intentions (for example, to acquire goods or services, or change jobs)

Personal information does not include the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.

How about the definition of consent with regards to that personal information:
Consent

Voluntary agreement with what is being done or proposed. Consent can be either express or implied. Express consent is given explicitly, either orally or in writing. Express consent is unequivocal and does not require any inference on the part of the organization seeking consent. Implied consent arises where consent may reasonably be inferred from the action or inaction of the individual.

Disclosure

Making personal information available to others outside the organization
Use

Refers to the treatment and handling of personal information within an organization.

That should clear up the "definitions" for you a little.

[LadyMischief]

Here are some of the obligations under PIPA for businesses and organization who collect personal information:

Your responsibilities

* Comply with all 10 of the principles of Schedule 1.
* Appoint an individual (or individuals) to be responsible for your organization's compliance.
* Protect all personal information held by your organization or transferred to a third party for processing.
* Develop and implement personal information policies and practices.

How to fulfil these responsibilities

* Give your designated privacy official senior management support and the authority to intervene on privacy issues relating to any of your organization's operations.
* Communicate the name or title of this individual internally and externally (e.g. on Web sites and in publications).
* Analyze all personal information handling practices including ongoing activities and new initiatives, using the following checklist to ensure that they meet fair information practices:
o What personal information do we collect?
o Why do we collect it?
o How do we collect it?
o What do we use it for?
o Where do we keep it?
o How is it secured?
o Who has access to or uses it?
o To whom is it disclosed?
o When is it disposed of?
* Develop and implement policies and procedures to protect personal information:
o define the purposes of its collection
o obtain consent
o limit its collection, use and disclosure
o ensure information is correct, complete and current
o ensure adequate security measures
o develop or update a retention and destruction timetable
o process access requests
o respond to inquiries and complaints
* Include a privacy protection clause in contracts to guarantee that the third party provides the same level of protection as your organization does.
* Inform and train staff on privacy policies and procedures.
* Make information available explaining these policies and procedures to customers (e.g. in brochures and on Web sites).

When transferring personal information to third parties, ensure that they:

* Name a person to handle all privacy aspects of the contract.
* Limit use of the personal information to the purposes specified to fulfil the contract.
* Limit disclosure of the information to what is authorized by your organization or required by law.
* Refer any people looking for access to their personal information to your organization.
* Return or dispose of the transferred information upon completion of the contract.
* Use appropriate security measures to protect the personal information.
* Allow your organization to audit the third party's compliance with the contract as necessary.

[LadyMischief]

Oh and yet MORE responsibility and liability with regards to personal information:
Your responsibilities

* Before or when any personal information is collected, identify why it is needed and how it will be used.
* Document why the information is collected.
* Inform the individual from whom the information is collected why it is needed.
* Identify any new purpose for the information and obtain the individual's consent before using it.

How to fulfil these responsibilities

* Review your personal information holdings to ensure they are all required for a specific purpose.
* Notify the individual, either orally or in writing, of these purposes.
* Record all identified purposes and obtained consents for easy reference in case an individual requests an account of such information.
* Ensure that these purposes are limited to what a reasonable person would expect under the circumstances.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Which is probably why DirectNic wouldn't ask for illegal information from a Canadian company.

I personally don't see how ANYONE can correlate identity theft with a picture and birthdate. I can send you a copy of my driver's license with nothing showing but my picture and birthdate and I highly doubt you'd be able to steal my identity - or even know my real name.

So if DirectNIC were to sieze the domains of someone under privacy laws, that person would then just be screwed, right? They could be basically blackmailed with no way out. Sounds like a great precident to set.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by tony404

If on the id all that is showing is the birthdate and the picture. I cant see how that would a privacy issue. Do you guys know for sure or is it guessing ?

I have purchased plenty of content that came with the model's ID intact, but your question about 'redacted' IDs was answered back when the FSC first filed the injunction, because that was one of their earliest vitories. Recacted IDs (address blacked out) are legal as long as the DOB and photo are visible and I don't see any privacy issue in that case.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

True, but then why are my attorneys getting it too? Doncha think at least ONE of the 4 would know the state law?? 2 were in the last 2 months, BTW. The other two were 5 and 4 years ago.

In case you didn't notice, I was posting predominantly about Canada, and other countries. Most states have some form of privacy laws, I don't know the extent of them and never claimed to :P

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I have purchased plenty of content that came with the model's ID intact, but your question about 'redacted' IDs was answered back when the FSC first filed the injunction, because that was one of their earliest vitories. Recacted IDs (address blacked out) are legal as long as the DOB and photo are visible and I don't see any privacy issue in that case.

In Canada, that would be considered personal information, especially if it's offered in conjunction with the photo of the person.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I have purchased plenty of content that came with the model's ID intact, but your question about 'redacted' IDs was answered back when the FSC first filed the injunction, because that was one of their earliest vitories. Recacted IDs (address blacked out) are legal as long as the DOB and photo are visible and I don't see any privacy issue in that case.

That would be an American decision. It would not effect us.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

In case you didn't notice, I was posting predominantly about Canada, and other countries. Most states have some form of privacy laws, I don't know the extent of them and never claimed to :P

I know - Gonzo and I were discussing Georgia law

[Hammer]

In this case, DN is acting as the judge and jury and presuming guilt. Even if Spike can't or refuses to produce the 2257 documents, that doesn't prove that the content on his site is illegal.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

I know - Gonzo and I were discussing Georgia law

The privacy laws will differ from state-to-state though. Something worth noting.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

In Canada, that would be considered personal information, especially if it's offered in conjunction with the photo of the person.

OK, I missed it in all that typage - where does it mention DOBs or photos being personal information?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

In Canada, that would be considered personal information, especially if it's offered in conjunction with the photo of the person.

That's why I don't buy any content from Canadian producers.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

We have to make special provisions for these things in our model releases, not only to hold the ID on record, but to be able to distribute it to SPECIFIC parties (such as for exclusive content clients who act as their own custodian of records). If a Canadian fills out their registration information, for example, they are VOLUNTEERING that information FIRSTHAND, NOBODY can decide what happens to their information legally after that point without that person's permission.

So, they are giving up the right to have their information remain totally private by waiving he right in a contract with you, right?

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Hammer

In this case, DN is acting as the judge and jury and presuming guilt. Even if Spike can't or refuses to produce the 2257 documents, that doesn't prove that the content on his site is illegal.

I never said Spike or HG... I'm referring to CANADIANS. Homegrown has their docs well in order, but I do hear what you're saying. It's the principle of the thing that is my main point of argue. I hate CP, I have two young daughters, and I have reported more than my fair share of sites to ASCAP and the FBI over the years. It's the principle of the thing, and the fact the domains were pulled before this guy was given a chance to produce ANYTHING. What will that mean for the future?

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

The privacy laws will differ from state-to-state though. Something worth noting.

Agreed, but again, Gonzo and I were discussing GEORGIA laws. That's all. Georgia. The state. Here in the US. He says it's illegal to copy a driver's license here, I say it isn't. Here. In GEORGIA.

[LadyMischief]

Not to mention multiple sponsors he was promoting have stepped up and offered to hand over docs to help him out. It's their content that is the cause of scrutiny and issue, I'm honestly surprised this hasn't turned into a witchhunt for teen sponsors.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

That would be considered personal information (especially if it is an actual scan or copy of the ID, BIG NONO) and would be illegal under PIPA regulations in Canada, and multiple international and even state regulations in the US.

Unless of course the person has given permission in a release or contract, right?

Has anyone asked what is in the particular model releases associated with the content in question? So, for all any of us know, it might be perfectly legal to release the info to DN.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, they are giving up the right to have their information remain totally private by waiving he right in a contract with you, right?

Absolutely not.. THe releases are VERY specific in their purposes as per the law. If I want to use the ID for a purpose other than is specified there, I have to get express written permission from the model.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Is whois information a person's ID? Cool, I finally have a driver's license then? :P

Name address city state zipcode and phone number. Seems pretty personal to me.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Unless of course the person has given permission in a release or contract, right?

Has anyone asked what is in the particular model releases associated with the content in question? So, for all any of us know, it might be perfectly legal to release the info to DN.

Releases, ID, all personal information right down to birthdate is covered under the law as it stands. You can try to muddy the waters with your speculation, but I think what I put there is pretty clear. I could also hunt up the entire contents of the seminar that our legal expert put together. That might help clear up a few more of your misconceptions if you like

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Name address city state zipcode and phone number. Seems pretty personal to me.

And also placed in the system by the FIRST PARTY to suit a purpose. They volunteer their information to be public and accessible. Not so with data collected for private purposes and with releases involved.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Absolutely not.. THe releases are VERY specific in their purposes as per the law. If I want to use the ID for a purpose other than is specified there, I have to get express written permission from the model.

Did you miss the "totally" in there? They have given up some of their rights by allowing you to pass the info to third parties in certain circumtances if you have that in your release, right?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Not to mention multiple sponsors he was promoting have stepped up and offered to hand over docs to help him out. It's their content that is the cause of scrutiny and issue, I'm honestly surprised this hasn't turned into a witchhunt for teen sponsors.

What are the name of the sponsors in question?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

I never said Spike or HG... I'm referring to CANADIANS.

I didn't say you did and I'm not getting involved in the Canadian debate, I'm simply talking about what DN is doing.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

You can try to muddy the waters with your speculation

Oh, I see how this works. The anti DN force is allowed to speculate all they want and assume that directnic did this out of the blue, on their own with no govenement inquiry starting he whole thing off, assume that none of the sponsors have privacy right clauses in their releases and assume that because Slick used sponsor content on a site that HE is PERSNALLY responsible for that the content was totally legal.

But if I make one speculation I am muddyng the waters?

You want in on the bet thread LM ?

[Peaches]

Looks like Experian can also ask for and receive a copy of your Georgia's driver's license.

OK, I've found at least THREE instances where it's legal to make a copy of a Georgia driver's license.

Batter up, Gonzo

[Hammer]

Ah, I see the confusion. I said Spike but misspoke and meant to say Slick.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Oh, I see how this works. The anti DN force is allowed to speculate all they want and assume that directnic did this out of the blue, on their own with no govenement inquiry starting he whole thing off, assume that none of the sponsors have privacy right clauses in their releases and assume that because Slick used sponsor content on a site that HE is PERSNALLY responsible for that the content was totally legal.

But if I make one speculation I am muddyng the waters?

You want in on the bet thread LM ?

I'm not ANTI-Directnic.. I just don't feel that a registrar has the right to demand id's from someone. I do believe htey have the right to report him, to shut him down, to give him the opportunity to respond. But the way this entire thing was handled was very much a jumping of the gun in my PERSONAL opinion, and the results of this could be far-reaching. Don't tell me that if DirectNIC doesn't pull this off unscathed, other registrars won't be doing the same kinds of things, and who knows for what reasons? Maybe DirectNIC DOES have a good reason, but if so they better produce it damned quick, or it's going to be the beginning of a disturbing trend that could threaten ALL adult business.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Looks like Experian can also ask for and receive a copy of your Georgia's driver's license.

OK, I've found at least THREE instances where it's legal to make a copy of a Georgia driver's license.

Batter up, Gonzo

Ill look when Im done with work.