DirectNic Demands SlicksNetwork.com Hand Over Model IDs

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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?

[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.

[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.