This May Be Bad....really bad.

[deusex]

The American government is back at it - trying to bring down the whole adult internet community in the guise of child pornography protection:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-10107.pdf

It's a long boring read (Acrobat file) - but the gist is they are trying to make it impossible for any adult site to comply with their rules.

John Ashcroft started this and I was hoping that after he resigned it would go away, but apparently it's going strong. All the protests and arguments were shot down and amendments made to make it even worse.

It's suppossed to go ahead in three weeks, and if so, it could most likely mean the removal of this (and most other sites)

The only way USG-online and Un-der-wear.com could display any photos if if I had specific official records for each and every person/photo on the site.

The rules are even more convoluted and retarded in that I would have to have official identification/records for each user having photos on here, but also all names and stage names that the person may have used. I would also have to have backups of any pages that appeared on the site.

Live shows (and webcams sites) will have to have video tape backups of everything they broadcast (although this doesn't apply to this site)

This will really hit all the free sites out there the hardest (although even the pay sites will probably shut down as the cost of keeping records and maintaining them will be prohibitive)

MSN and Yahoo groups will also have to shut down - or at least all the file sections.

I'm going to wait and see what happens, but it really doesn't look good.

I'm going to try and talk to a lawyer and find out if I elliminate all the nudity and stick to strictly underwear shots will I be safe from the rules.

....did I mention....

I still hate Bush!

[snowybriefs]

That's unbelievable...! Being from the UK, I'm somewhat distanced from the legislation that is being proposed, but it sounds like a clear violation of human rights (if such a thing exists in the US...under Bush I'd be sceptical). Would off-shoring the host server storing the data be an option? I know that much legislation in the UK (and EU) is driven by the 'domicile' of the data, i.e. where is the physical data storage. Many organisations manage/choose to evade the legislative control by storing their data remotely.

Deusex...I sincerely hope that alll your time and effort in keeping this as one of the best underwear boards on the net is not undone by a bunch of over zealous bureaucrats randomly wielding a legislative stick in the hope of incapacitating a minority of rogue (and admittedly dangerous and offensive) illegal sites. Targeting specific perpetrators, whose motives are sinister and subversive, surely has to be a better use of governmental resources?

[chipmunk]

what can we do to support you and this great site deusex??

[deusex]

snowybriefs,

Off-shoring would be a solution, but an expensive and time consuming one. My hosting deal is pretty amazing right now with realiblehosting. Trying to move all my sites - I just can't imagine the headaches and costs.

Josh2b,

I do think you have a point - the term sexually explicit conduct is the key. Is a hard dick coverred by underwear sexually explicit conduct? Who knows? I'm sure the vagueness of it is on purpose.

My main business (as many of you know is a gay adult website) will be hiring lawyers to deal with the rulings - and will most likely head overseas. I will most likely be able to figure out where usg-online fits into it all with the talks with the lawyers (without having to incur personal lawyer fees)

I agree with you Josh2b, if it means taking a few photos off that have more than one person in them or are obviously masturbation photos, then that would be the easier solution with little harm done to the site.

The most ridiculous part of the rulings is the stipulation that sites keep a backup of every broadcast for 7 years. Think about a gay adult site that has streaming video - A site like Bedfellow has 30 plus shows with close to a hundred feeds running 24 hours a day - Can you imagine the Terrabytes of storage you would need to store that much back up video. It's just not feasible.

The commercial adult sites don't deal in child pornography - they are legit businesses that wouldn't be stupid to risk their livelihoods, but that is who these regulations are targeting. Argh!!!

Oh well, we'll see...hopefully it won't affect this site too badly.

...will keep you posted,

[briefencounters]

deusex, I have just been reading the pdf article, and from what I have read it looks to me like it relates more to producers of adult movies, magazines etc or material for internet sites that use performers either contracted or otherwise, and the need to make sure that minors are not being used in the adult industry to produce sexually explicit material, I may be wrong but that is how I read it. Seems there asking producers to keep records of performers age, names, aliasses, etc, to verify they are of legal age, plus dates material was produced.

You can go to some sites where the person depicted in an image/movie is stated to be over the legal age, but looks a lot younger, so this could be another reason for them changing things and asking for proof and records.

Hope the way I have read the article I am right and that it won't mean you having to take images off or lose the site as this is a great web site.

[JohnH]

deusex, I have just been reading the pdf article, and from what I have read it looks to me like it relates more to producers of adult movies, magazines etc or material for internet sites that use performers either contracted or otherwise, and the need to make sure that minors are not being used in the adult industry to produce sexually explicit material

That's correct, BUT. . . . the effect of the regulations, applicable to the internet as well as other media, would make EVERY PERSON POSTING A SELF-PIC ON THIS SITE A PERFORMER!!!!!! For whose records John would become responsible for maintaining.

However, the regulations are only applicable to material depicting sexually explicit conduct, and this board really would be only minimally impacted, I think.

Unfortunately, it sounds as if John maintains some boards which DO feature sexually explicit conduct. I wouldn't waste a whole lot of money on lawyers, John. You're a Canadian, right? US law doesn't extend beyond the borders of the US, and these regulations could only affect you if your servers are located in the US. . . . which I'm thinking may be the case? Maybe you might want to consider engaging a Canadian hosting company? Maybe you can't beat the deal you currently have, but relocation does sound a lot cheaper than attorneys' fees. Anyway, there's my $0.02 worth. . . . .

[deusex]

Thanks for your comments!

Yes, I'm a Canadian, but this site is hosted in the US. I think the way around it without having to incur major costs is to keep this site focused on underwear and away from anything that could be misconstrued as a sexual act. I just can't see a hardon in a pair of undies as something that is going to offend anyone. If it is, then Calvin Klein will have to also abide by the regulations.

All the photos that appear on this site by the 2257 definition makes me a secondary producer, and that's where things get sticky. If they're talking about any image that's sexually provocative, then I would indeed have to maintain detailed records for every image and make them readily available at the request of the regulators. Not only would I have to have records for every image, but also backups of every page that ever appeared or changed on the site and keep it filed for 7 years with all the records/i.d's.

My other site (my lively hood) is a major gay adult site most of you know. I have always wanted to keep USG and my other site as separate as possible for many reasons. That site is however hosted in Canada and should be ok from the regulations.

These regulations if enforced (and that seems like the reality) will change how Americans are involved in the Adult industry. My guess is that most commercial companies will be forced overseas, and most of the free sites will just give up their sites as the records are too hard to manage and the rules to hard to follow. Most amateur site owners won't have the resources to maintain records and have them available during "reasonable" hours whenever requested by the regulators. Pear to Pear services will become the way to get porn and the child pornography will continue to be spread through underground boards and chat rooms like it always has been.

Anyway....time will tell,

[stevempls]

It's ironic that these preposterous regulations are pushed by Republicans who have traditionally spoken out against government regulations. But these days whatever the sexophobic Christian right wants, they get. It's a catch 22 situation because it's difficult for users of adult online content (stastically a high percentage) can't speak out about it, because although everyone knows that everyone uses online porn, no one actually admits it publically. In any sensible time, these regulations would be struck done because it's obvious that the law isn't targeted in a focussed way at the sites its ostensibly aimed at. It would be like fighting food poisoning by requiring grocers to have records of the parentage of every chicken they sell. But these aren't sensible times in the U.S. Ashcroft was pretty much an obvious fascist, but his boss, for all his folksy drawl and "compassionate" ways is pretty much a crypto-fascist. His style of government includes torture, execution, arbitrary imprisonment, suppression of minorities, extensive use of government disinformation and propaganda, intimidation of free media . . . well, enough said. (By the way, I see a smilie getting the BJ just to the right of this; will he have to put on swimsuit?)

[JohnH]

It's ironic that these preposterous regulations are pushed by Republicans who have traditionally spoken out against government regulations.

Republicans ALWAYS oppose big government--until, that is, THEY control the government. Then, suddenly, "big government" becomes a good thing. . . . .

There is also a difference between what might be called political conservatism (which most in the U.S. support) and social conservatism (which most in the U.S. oppose--at least, its most radical agendas). As best as I can understand it, social conservatism is based on the beliefs that:

1. There is a natural order underlying the social order, and that natural order may and must be enforced by law if necessary.

2. There is a divine order underlying the natural order, and that divine order may and must be enforced by law if necessary.

Many who voted for Bush were under the impression that he was a political and fiscal conservative, while being essentially a moderate on social issues. Unfortunately, we ended up with exactly the opposite: Bush turned out to be a social conservative, while spending huge amounts of money and running up an enormous deficit! A few principled conservatives have denounced this, but the sad fact is that the conservative agenda is now largely dominated by social issues such as opposition to abortion, gay rights, and even the right of adults to view and enjoy porn!

And the Bush administration has made absolutely no secret of its intent to eliminate not just child porn (which ought to be eliminated!) but adult porn as well (because, you see, it's, well, evil. . . .) Once a year, President Bush proclaims "National Freedom from Pornography Week" and directs that it be observed "with all appropriate activities." Me? Well, I observe "National Freedom from Freedom from Pornography Week" at week's end.

And, trust me, I observe it "with all appropriate activities!"

[Twain]

I've read your notice about the Bush thought-police. Other sites are also trimming their wings. I think I noticed some pictures gone that were refered to. Is this part of the need to limit this great site?

[deusex]

Twain,

Nothing has been done to this site. I'm pretty sure it's safe being a Canadian site. If photos are missing, it's usually the owner of the photos has removed them.

[begisnairn]

Whatever you do, save this great site and our privacy. I also like www.4lads.com. The webmaster there has just announced he moved his server to one in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Now there's a great tolerant place. Maybe this is worth your looking into? Maybe you are doing that?


I just want to see this site go on and on and on and on and on


with our privacy protected and our fun carefree. Let's stay away from the eyes of 'big brother' Hasn't the U. S. Congress membership read 1984? It's definitely tooo much.

[JohnH]

Hasn't the U. S. Congress membership read 1984?



I'm sure they've all read it, begisnairn. Unfortunately, they seem to be under the collective delusion that it's a textbook. . . .