5 ms·

Amazing law.

nolok 7y ago
I don't have it here / I don't have it now / It's not me who keep them / It wasn't me at the time / I don't know Just like banking regulations that seems stupid, they come from real abuses and a solution to it at the time. I doubt laws signed in 1988 had internet scale and access in mind, nor could they predict it.
- philipov 7y ago
  When the law can't keep up with reality even after this long, that's not an excuse, it's an indication of a broken system.
  - filmgirlcw 7y ago
    Indeed. Especially when in cases like this, when you’re talking about fingerprints, passport information, gender, parents names, marital information — not to mention standard PII fare — all coupled with the fact that nude photos/videos can be tied to this data too. This makes me physically sick.
    - AJ007 7y ago
      2257 was passed well over a decade ago, with minimal public dispute. The only concerning thing is if the models don’t fully understand what the law entails. All affiliate publishers have to have that information under the law. Also, because of face recognition there really is zero anonymity at this point. It would be very misleading to represent to someone otherwise.
      - filmgirlcw 7y ago
        The lawyers don’t even understand how the law says data is supposed to be segregated [1], how are the performers supposed to know. Also, there is a very big difference between citing facial recognition tech (which while rapidly becoming more common, is still something that requires a degree of skill to use and has a real cost to using) as a reason for “zero anonymity” and having public records with direct ties to nude photos and videos leaked. It’s even more misleading to represent that these have the same risk profile. [1]: https://lawofsex.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/keeping-your-records-clean-segregating-2257-records-under-federal-law/ https://lawofsex.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/keeping-your-recor...
- papito 7y ago
  That's not a bug - that's a feature.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > I don't have it here / I don't have it now / It's not me who keep them / It wasn't me at the time / I don't know More like the state should not need it at all. Why support even more surveillance?
jimmaswell 7y ago
It's one data leak compared to all the abuse the law has prevented.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  It's one data leak that will have life-changing consequences for a lot of people. Age verification and privacy aren't mutually exclusive. The law can be amended in a way to remain effective without exposing people to such risks. Back when the law was designed data breaches and being able to find everything online wasn't a thing so it wasn't a problem anyone thought of. Now it's time to fix the law to address the new risks.

Amazing law.

I don't have it here / I don't have it now / It's not me who keep them / It wasn't me at the time / I don't know Just like banking regulations that seems stupid, they come from real abuses and a solution to it at the time. I doubt laws signed in 1988 had internet scale and access in mind, nor could they predict it.

philipov 7y ago
When the law can't keep up with reality even after this long, that's not an excuse, it's an indication of a broken system.
- filmgirlcw 7y ago
  Indeed. Especially when in cases like this, when you’re talking about fingerprints, passport information, gender, parents names, marital information — not to mention standard PII fare — all coupled with the fact that nude photos/videos can be tied to this data too. This makes me physically sick.
  - AJ007 7y ago
    2257 was passed well over a decade ago, with minimal public dispute. The only concerning thing is if the models don’t fully understand what the law entails. All affiliate publishers have to have that information under the law. Also, because of face recognition there really is zero anonymity at this point. It would be very misleading to represent to someone otherwise.
    - filmgirlcw 7y ago
      The lawyers don’t even understand how the law says data is supposed to be segregated [1], how are the performers supposed to know. Also, there is a very big difference between citing facial recognition tech (which while rapidly becoming more common, is still something that requires a degree of skill to use and has a real cost to using) as a reason for “zero anonymity” and having public records with direct ties to nude photos and videos leaked. It’s even more misleading to represent that these have the same risk profile. [1]: https://lawofsex.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/keeping-your-records-clean-segregating-2257-records-under-federal-law/ https://lawofsex.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/keeping-your-recor...
papito 7y ago
That's not a bug - that's a feature.
dependenttypes 7y ago
> I don't have it here / I don't have it now / It's not me who keep them / It wasn't me at the time / I don't know More like the state should not need it at all. Why support even more surveillance?

jimmaswell 7y ago

It's one data leak compared to all the abuse the law has prevented.

Nextgrid 7y ago
It's one data leak that will have life-changing consequences for a lot of people. Age verification and privacy aren't mutually exclusive. The law can be amended in a way to remain effective without exposing people to such risks. Back when the law was designed data breaches and being able to find everything online wasn't a thing so it wasn't a problem anyone thought of. Now it's time to fix the law to address the new risks.