Govt. fucking "adult" websites?

[findfirefox]

From, Say No to Section 2257! | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

The Department of Justice is proposing regulations to implement a federal law designed to combat child pornography, known as Section 2257. The law was first enacted in 1998 and was amended in 2006 and significantly expanded to include regulation of the Internet.
While many of the regulations pertain to companies that produce adult entertainment magazines and videos (and are extremely burdensome), they would also affect anyone who uses an adult social-networking site. Here’s how:
· The regulations would require the people running a site to get and maintain personal information from every user (that means you) who posts a “sexually explicit” photo, including your photo ID (driver’s license, passport, or military ID).
· The regulations would allow the Attorney General to conduct warrantless searches at will on the sites’ records, including your personal information.
· There are few safeguards over what the FBI can do with the information it obtains.
· If a site operator fails to comply with the regulations, he or she would face a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
· For more detailed information on Sec. 2257, go to http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/misc/2257_fact_sheet.pdf.
Obviously, none of this has anything to do with child pornography. Instead, it is a blatant attempt to end the ability of consenting adults to use adult social-networking sites to meet other people for sex. Obviously, if these regulations go into effect, they will kill this industry.

More Important...

What You Can Do
The Department of Justice has published these proposed regulations and the public has until September 10 to comment on them.

We need to generate thousands of comments objecting to the proposed regulations – and it’s easy to do via e-mail. Just follow the instructions below.
[Text Removed]
Take Action Now
Here is a sample letter with the e-mail address you need to send it to (Admin.ceos@usdoj.gov) and the subject you must include in the subject line of your e-mail (Section 2257 Docket No. CRM 104).

Sample Letter
---------------
To: Admin.ceos@usdoj.gov
Re: Section 2257 Docket No. CRM 104


To the U.S. Department of Justice:


I am writing to object to the proposed “Section 2257” regulations.

These regulations are complicated and burdensome on legitimate businesses, and have very little to do with protecting children and minors from pornography. Their reach — particularly into adult social-networking internet services — is overbroad, unnecessary, and would allow the federal government to search and seize personal records of adult consumers without a warrant; a clear violation privacy and constitutional rights.

Specifically, I object to the following provisions:

1. The regulations (18 § 2257(b)(1) and (c)) would force adult social-networking services to obtain and maintain personal information about their users, including the user's photo ID (driver’s license, passport, or military ID). (I must note that the sites already require users to affirm that they are over 18 years of age.) Many sites have tens of thousands of users and it is simply not possible for them to do this. Moreover, many people who use these sites want to maintain their privacy, for any number of reasons, including the sad fact that they might face discrimination and/or violence if others found out they were using these sites. It is still legal in 31 states to discriminate against someone who is gay or bisexual, and in 41 states if the person is transgender. The combination of the recordkeeping requirements and many users’ fears about providing such information will kill the entire industry.

All of this is overkill given that adult social networking sites were not identified as a problem in the production, distribution and downloading of child pornography in the Department of Justice’s own report on “Child Pornography on the Internet” (May 2006).

2. The regulations (18 § 2257(g) and under 28 C.F.R. § 75.5) would allow the Attorney General to conduct unannounced warrantless searches at will on the sites’ records, including reviewing and presumably seizing the personal information on site users. This is an egregious abuse of government authority, an unwarranted invasion of privacy and, in my opinion, a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

3. The regulations (28 C.F.R. § 75.5(4)) provide insufficient safeguards over what the government can do with the information it obtains through its searches. This, by itself, has a chilling effect on the ability of people to engage in constitutionally protected activities. As noted above, this is particularly dangerous for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Let me be clear: I believe children need to be protected from coercion into pornography and it is important for the federal government to do all that it can to insure those protections. Sadly, many of the provisions of the proposed 2257 regulations do nothing to address child pornography, but instead are clearly aiming at destroying an industry and ending a legal and valuable way for adults to meet one another.

Sincerely, (your name),

Who's in?

-----

Credit is given to Lex for posting this somewhere and I posted it here just because it something big enough that I think more eyes should hit and hopefuly more e-mails sent.

 

[DC_DEEP]

[disclaimer: this is directed at the post, not the person]

If you've got nothing to hide, this won't effect you.

What an idiotic statement. I have nothing to hide, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I do not want to have that much personally identifiable information stored on ANY website I choose to visit.

Perhaps you trust your government, without hesitation or qualification. I do not trust mine. This law, as it stands on the books at this time, violates many of our Constitutional precepts.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>


Who's in?

-----

Credit is given to Lex for posting this somewhere and I posted it here just because it something big enough that I think more eyes should hit and hopefuly more e-mails sent.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and outrage, firefox, but I've done my part. Back in 2005, I wrote to my reps in the House and Senate. In 2006, I did my online equivalent of jumping up & down and screaming, trying to get every member of this site (and others) to write. I think I convinced Lex and Madame Zora - most everyone else said something like "Oh, I can't be bothered, I'm too busy looking at porn" or "Why should I write? I can't make a difference."

Almost no one really got it that if they were a member of this site, that law affects them. My evangelism against that law was nowhere near as effective as the religious right's evangelism for 2257. I did my part and gave up.

 

[Osiris]

I appreciate your enthusiasm and outrage, firefox, but I've done my part. Back in 2005, I wrote to my reps in the House and Senate. In 2006, I did my online equivalent of jumping up & down and screaming, trying to get every member of this site (and others) to write. I think I convinced Lex and Madame Zora - most everyone else said something like "Oh, I can't be bothered, I'm too busy looking at porn" or "Why should I write? I can't make a difference."

Almost no one really got it that if they were a member of this site, that law affects them. My evangelism against that law was nowhere near as effective as the religious right's evangelism for 2257. I did my part and gave up.

I have been pestering my Senators repeatedly over the last year. If it passes it won't be because I was silent.

 

[frizzle]

If you've got nothing to hide, this won't effect you.

 

[Osiris]

If you've got nothing to hide, this won't effect you.

Not necessarily. What really bothers me about this is the ramifications it could have for a US citizen.

If this law passes, I now have to put my legal ID info out here for Rob_E to keep so that if the Feds audit him, he can prove I am of the age I say I am. Let's say the site gets hacked, I am now compromised. Worse yet? Say someone is applying for a job and they do a background search on the web, it comes out that I'm a member of this site. Whereas I see nothing wrong with it, my future employer could view this as inappropriate for his business. Basically my private life would be part of public record.

Am I ashamed of being a member of this site? No, but there are those out there who would condemn this site and it's members. The majority of the lot are in the religious, moral sector that right now is enjoying a lot of power thanks to the current administration.

Does that make sense?

 

[frizzle]

It all depends on the situation or employer, but yes an employer does have a right to not hire you if he or she thinks the site will effect your personal life and therefore effect the job. Which is perfectly fine.

 

[Lex]

Foxy--thanks for posting this. It's important.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and outrage, firefox, but I've done my part. Back in 2005, I wrote to my reps in the House and Senate. In 2006, I did my online equivalent of jumping up & down and screaming, trying to get every member of this site (and others) to write. I think I convinced Lex and Madame Zora - most everyone else said something like "Oh, I can't be bothered, I'm too busy looking at porn" or "Why should I write? I can't make a difference."

Almost no one really got it that if they were a member of this site, that law affects them. My evangelism against that law was nowhere near as effective as the religious right's evangelism for 2257. I did my part and gave up.

I sent letters then and I have resent this letter a few days ago.

People fail to see that places like LPSG would cease to exist because of the inordinate burden placed on the owners to gather and maintain the information. And we won't even get into all the privacy issues with giving the gov't carte blanche into your information. It's not about having anything to hide.

This is exactly the kind of thing the site owners should be emailing, PMing and posting so that everyone gets the message. I received notes from 2 sites that I belong to imploring us to take action.

Wake the fuck up, people.

And no, I am not back. This, however, is important enough, like Danny's death, for me to speak up here.

 

[Principessa]

It all depends on the situation or employer, but yes an employer does have a right to not hire you if he or she thinks the site will effect your personal life and therefore effect the job. Which is perfectly fine.

No, they do not. My God but you are a stupid twat! Why do you insist upon posting in threads where you really have no clue as to what is going on. This is of monumental importance because it violates our constitutional rights as Americans! Perhaps you don't mind every politician and high ranking official having access to every bit of information about your personal life but I do.

njqt466

 

[Drifterwood]

Does it affect those of us who live outside US judicial control?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Does it affect those of us who live outside US judicial control?

Interesting question, Drifterwood. Almost all (if not all) internet traffic has signals which pass through the USA. The US government sometimes considers that to be within their jurisdiction, and sometimes not. It depends upon what they hope to accomplish with it.

 

[SteveHd]

I need to ask: Is the "regulation" a reinterpretation [my word] of the existing 18 USC 2257? The phrase "Say No to Section 2257" implies [to me] new law.

 

[frizzle]

No, they do not. My God but you are a stupid twat! Why do you insist upon posting in threads where you really have no clue as to what is going on. This is of monumental importance because it violates our constitutional rights as Americans! Perhaps you don't mind every politician and high ranking official having access to every bit of information about your personal life but I do.

njqt466

[disclaimer: this is directed at the post, not the person]What an idiotic statement. I have nothing to hide, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I do not want to have that much personally identifiable information stored on ANY website I choose to visit.

Perhaps you trust your government, without hesitation or qualification. I do not trust mine. This law, as it stands on the books at this time, violates many of our Constitutional precepts.

Yes, I fully accept my Government and trust it more then half of the people I know. They're there to keep checks on the voting populous, not to try and imprison us for looking up on dirty websites. It'll be for the greater good in my opinion. Also ngjt, I would prefer it if you did not call me a twat.

A tidbit for you, Google sends unwholesome searches such as bomb making and child pornography searches to the FBI.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Well, frizzle, if you want to give every website you join that information, that's fine. I do not wish to do so. Again, I have nothing to hide, but I won't give all that extra information to airlines when I travel, either...

If you don't mind being thoroughly databased and cross-referenced, that's your business. I prefer to be less of a sheep, and hold the government to the promises they have made, and to hold them accountable when they renege on their own laws, standards, and promises.

 

[Osiris]

It all depends on the situation or employer, but yes an employer does have a right to not hire you if he or she thinks the site will effect your personal life and therefore effect the job. Which is perfectly fine.

That's called discrimination and it is illegal in the job market in the US.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

It all depends on the situation or employer, but yes an employer does have a right to not hire you if he or she thinks the site will effect your personal life and therefore effect the job. Which is perfectly fine.

I thought your first post in this thread was meant to be sarcastic.

This law is ridiculous. Like so many others, it hides its ulterior motives behind a facade of protecting people. Like the new road taxes here in Virginia hide behind "stopping people from driving like crazy." This one hides behind that omnipresent spectre child pornography. It's next to impossible to find child pornography on the internet. Go on, look for it. It's not out there. All this is doing is allowing evangelicals to further target anybody who doesn't fear sex as much as they do, and gives the government an excuse to get its grubby fingers further up the skirt of the internet... something they've been struggling to do any way they can for over a decade now.

 

[Osiris]

Yes, I fully accept my Government and trust it more then half of the people I know. They're there to keep checks on the voting populous, not to try and imprison us for looking up on dirty websites. It'll be for the greater good in my opinion. Also ngjt, I would prefer it if you did not call me a twat.

A tidbit for you, Google sends unwholesome searches such as bomb making and child pornography searches to the FBI.

I trust our goverment to a degree. You have never had to deal with discrimination due to the color of your skin. My family has and living in the South during that era, it was legal to arrest them for merely walking in the wrong place. Does that sound like a fair government to you? You are correct about the FBI, but even they have fault. My best friend is Hawaiian, do you know he gets searched and questioned everytime he flies? That is because he "fits the profile". Even funnier? He knew he was on the list as a friend of his at the FBI told him. What does my friend do you ask? He is a decorated police detective. Government is Not infallible and it is up to the people to help keep the goverment aware of the chinks in the political armor.

You live in the UK, we live in the US. Two totally different governments and motives.

Well, frizzle, if you want to give every website you join that information, that's fine. I do not wish to do so. Again, I have nothing to hide, but I won't give all that extra information to airlines when I travel, either...

If you don't mind being thoroughly databased and cross-referenced, that's your business. I prefer to be less of a sheep, and hold the government to the promises they have made, and to hold them accountable when they renege on their own laws, standards, and promises.

Well said DC. I am so sick of the information raping I have to go through just to fly to the midwest anymore. It's going to get to a point where you can't get an ISP account without an FBI background check.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Well said DC. I am so sick of the information raping I have to go through just to fly to the midwest anymore. It's going to get to a point where you can't get an ISP account without an FBI background check.

Thanks, Osiris. Are you familiar with the strong-arm tactics that the feds are using to force states into their "Real ID" program? I don't trust a single claim the feds have made regarding this program, and I can see how it would easily tie into the concept of requiring ID to surf the web.

 

[simcha]

It all depends on the situation or employer, but yes an employer does have a right to not hire you if he or she thinks the site will effect your personal life and therefore effect the job. Which is perfectly fine.

In our country this is unconstitutional and it violates our rights as Americans. I'm not sure what they do in the UK, here we are supposed to have a right to privacy. That's disappearing fast. With this law, you can be sure law enforcement will just get more and more invasive.

I know I'll have to leave the site if this law passes. The licensing board in California can revoke my registration for doing things that they deem as "unprofessional" and "likely" to affect my ability to do my profession. The judging of this is up to them and they tend to be a puritanical lot. So, there goes my freedom to have a personal life on-line without fear that I could have my career ended by puritans and conservative wackos if this law passes.

 

[Osiris]

I thought your first post in this thread was meant to be sarcastic.

This law is ridiculous. Like so many others, it hides its ulterior motives behind a facade of protecting people. Like the new road taxes here in Virginia hide behind "stopping people from driving like crazy." This one hides behind that omnipresent spectre child pornography. It's next to impossible to find child pornography on the internet. Go on, look for it. It's not out there. All this is doing is allowing evangelicals to further target anybody who doesn't fear sex as much as they do, and gives the government an excuse to get its grubby fingers further up the skirt of the internet... something they've been struggling to do any way they can for over a decade now.

For fear of sounding like an Evangelical... AMEN BROTHER! You said it there.

Thanks, Osiris. Are you familiar with the strong-arm tactics that the feds are using to force states into their "Real ID" program? I don't trust a single claim the feds have made regarding this program, and I can see how it would easily tie into the concept of requiring ID to surf the web.

I am familiar with it and it is disgusting the lengths the goverment are going to. Orwell had the current administration in mind when he wrote Animal Farm and 1984. I think most in our state are against it. I know my Senator is at least.