3 ms·

The whole question here is whether the law should require it. The reason why it's a strange concept is that it would severely limit the spread of information. T

The whole question here is whether the law should require it. The reason why it's a strange concept is that it would severely limit the spread of information. The same avenues that a regular person can get content about them deleted can be used by politicians or criminals to do the same. Not only that, these levers can also be abused to simply target somebody with false claims. Furthermore, it also places trust onto the video hosting website to keep all of that information safe. If they get hacked, then all of that documentation and images of IDs get leaked. >Why should someone be able to upload whatever they want to platforms with no responsibility for what they’re uploading? This isn't in question though. The question is whether sites need to be preemptive or reactive. Illegal content is illegal even right now and these websites will delete it. If they don't then you can take them to court and the content will get deleted. However, the thread suggests that these websites should be forced to be preemptive - to demand documentation upfront. That's a whole different situation.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
All systems are open to abuse, which is why it's important to build systems with robust measures to counter abuse. The spread of some information should be limited. Takedowns should be logged and reported on to regulatory bodies to ensure everyone involved is acting in good faith. With regards to video hosting websites maintaining identification information, it's possible to provide this functionality without they themselves storing sensitive user identification data. Third party providers (ID.me comes to mind) could be utilized to do so, with adult content hosting providers treating this data similar to payment data and the PCI requirements that go along with it (store the verification/attestation token and timestamps, not the data itself). I would agree that I wouldn't want Pornhub storing my passport photo and metadata. Finally, to your point about preemptive vs reactive, in the case of adult content platforms, it seems reasonable to require preemptive documentation considering the record keeping requirements for producing adult content. Refer to 18 U.S. Code § 2257 for specifics [1] [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 [2] https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult (Control-F "Who is required to keep records about adult images under federal law?")

toomuchtodo 6y ago

All systems are open to abuse, which is why it's important to build systems with robust measures to counter abuse. The spread of some information should be limited. Takedowns should be logged and reported on to regulatory bodies to ensure everyone involved is acting in good faith. With regards to video hosting websites maintaining identification information, it's possible to provide this functionality without they themselves storing sensitive user identification data. Third party providers (ID.me comes to mind) could be utilized to do so, with adult content hosting providers treating this data similar to payment data and the PCI requirements that go along with it (store the verification/attestation token and timestamps, not the data itself). I would agree that I wouldn't want Pornhub storing my passport photo and metadata. Finally, to your point about preemptive vs reactive, in the case of adult content platforms, it seems reasonable to require preemptive documentation considering the record keeping requirements for producing adult content. Refer to 18 U.S. Code § 2257 for specifics [1] [2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 [2] https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult (Control-F "Who is required to keep records about adult images under federal law?")