board77

Thanks, Eru. I don't get around the board enough.

tinwe_linto wrote:

Oops. I meant to say there is not a shared address for Sassy and Oreo!

<enormous sigh of relief>

Thanks Tinwe. My sanity is saved.
Today anyway.



In gratitude for that welcome piece of information, may I present you with a trebuchet for your collection?



Yes indeed CC, we are quite mad.
Rather proud of it too, I believe.

Hmm...I specifically remember there being just one IP number that Sassy shared with someone...it was a dynamic number, not a static one, so it wasn't cause to worry.

Crazycosh, it is not federal laws that I am particularly concerned about. As I've stated before in this thread and other threads, each state has its own statutes regarding the broad question of minors on the internet. For instance, in California (where I live and practice) it is illegal to distribute or exhibit harmful matter to a minor over the Internet (California Pen. Code, § 288.2, subd. (b)). The grey area is what exactly constitutes harmful material. I know Eru, that you do not consider anything at ToE to be harmful. Nor do I. However, I am not convinced that a judge or jury would necessarily agree. Particularly in the current climate. It certainly is enough of a grey area that the argument could be made

Eli?

That link doesn't work btw.

So I'm guessing you won't provide a specific example (sans names) of a person losing their job because a non-porn site they visited Voronwe?

Eru, Voronwë (who is an attorney practicing in the area of employment law) saying that it can happen isn't enough to justify concern by a reasonable person? Are his credentials insufficient?

I don't personally know anyone who's been eaten by a bear, but I didn't put a ham sandwich under my pillow in Yellowstone.

I couldn't find the specific part of that document where it said that, do you have a link - perferably anchored?

Dunno why the link doesn't work, but if you search on www.thomas.loc.gov and search for Section 2257 you'll find the legislation to which I referred.

Would the local laws apply on a server outside of that state, if international law does not apply on a US server except US law?

I'm not questioning his credibility Prim. I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around the absuridity of it happening. Pardon me.

If the stakes are high enough, isn't caution justified? How much risk is it reasonable to ask someone else to take for one's own benefit? How do you balance one against another?

I'm seriously asking, too, Eru.

I'm not convinced the stakes are high enough just by someone telling me it can happen. It's like a priest telling me "God exists". Well he has the credentials, he deals with God everyday, but until I experience something first hand or hear a specific story from a person who has experienced God, then I have a hard time grasping the idea.

I need to be shown Prim, not just told. It's how I learn and I can't help it. I'm sorry if that doesn't work for you.

edit: What harm am I doing by asking him to submit a case highlighting the absurdity? Why is my curiousity such a problem for you?

Thanks, Eru. I understand where you're coming from now. I'm sorry if I seemed irritated. I'm touchier than I should be these days, and I should not be taking it out on you or anyone.

I don't know if Voronwë has specific examples to produce. He may not have handled such a case himself.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

I'm touchier than I should be these days, and I should not be taking it out on you or anyone.

That's fine and I understand...well...not really understand of course, but you get what I mean.

Eru, I don't generally discuss the details of cases that I handle (or even of people who contact me with a potential cases) publicly, even without the names, since the information is shared with me in strict confidence. If you don't want to believe that what I say is true, that is your perogative. I don't know why you have become so suspicious of me and my motives, but it appears that you are not willing to accept anything that I say at face value. So be it.

I will say this much. As an employment law attorney, I receive about 2-5 calls a day from people, most of whom have been terminated from their job for some irrational or unfair reason. That's 10-25 people a week, 40-100 in a month, up to 1200 people in a year. Of those 1200 people, maybe five of them might have a viable case. But all the rest of them still have their story about why their termination was irrational or unfair. Have I seen the exact situation of someone being fired because they participated in a sex forum that allowed minors to participate? No. Have I seen enough similar situations (indeed, situations involving much less justification for a termination) to allow me to conclude that people would be justified in worrying about it? Absolutely.

Crazycosh, the laws of the state that the minor receiving the material lives in would certainly be applicable. But as I've said before (I hate repeating myself, but it seems to be necessary) I don't think that a criminal prosecution is a significant concern. The concerns that I do think are significant are, as I have said, the possibility of a lawsuit from an irate parent, or the possibility of an employer using this issue as a justification for terminating or otherwise disciplining an employee.

You're taking this far too personally Voronwe. My need for facts and specific examples has no bearing on you. I rarely ever automatically believe what a person says 'can happen' unless they back it up with evidence. I'm the type of person who needs proof and cannot go on faith alone.

edit: And don't lawyers study cases? Wouldn't this mean that cases can be talked about in some form. I get the whole confidentiality thing, but if something has happened in the courts, can't that be shared? Just wondering.

Eru: As a general principle, labor law exists to protect employers, not laborers.

I personally was fired when I became pregnant with my oldest daughter. At my previous employer, a co-worker was fired when she became pregnant. This cause for dismissal is not as unusual as people might think. Pregnancy leave is at the discretion of the company - there is no law that guaratantees it.

I personally know someone who lost their job when it became known that they made annual donations to Greenpeace, because Greenpeace was perceived by their employer to be a radical terrorist organization.

I'm confused why what a person chooses to view in their own personal time has a bearing on their employment.

Calling attention to Fixer's post: Well... I am logging in from work, you see.....

Bingo.

No, employers do not perform background checks by hiring investigators to hack into your home computer and see where you post. But they do keep record of all navigation info stored on work computers and they DO investigate that info after the fact. Worker privacy is a big issue in the workplace today.

They don't do this for moral reasons primarily but to ensure that workers are not goofing off at work. However I have no trouble understanding the unwillingness of a poster to have their employer track down a website to which they posted from work, and see there on the front page a bold disclaimer regarding the ToE. This was an issue for us when we discussed the size, prominence and wording of our front page statement.

Crazycosh: Welcome to B77. There is another thread on this topic in this forum where a I posted a few days ago a compilation of links to sites about the international laws on internet censorship and some of the U.S. legislation in this area, both passed and pending: My Post

The Child Online Protection Act has had most of its provisions struck down by the Supreme Court, so you are correct that federal law does not prohibit minors from accessing even porn sites on the internet. But criminal prosecution is not really what concerns those of us who are concerned.

B77 does have, believe it or not, many interesting forums where sex is not the topic of discussion. I would like to be able to send my children here, my friends, and even my students if I know them well enough to know their avocations. I am a college professor, and my children, my friends and my students are all old enough to access the ToE if they wanted to. With the ToE having the content it has today, which is quite innocuous, and discussion limited to adults, I would have no problem sending anyone to B77, though I would undoubtedly tell them about the existence of the ToE myself before sending them here, so that the front page statement would not be the only explanation they would receive.

But if the ToE admits those 16 and over ... and really, why stop there? Why not admit everyone 13 and over? There are certainly 13 and 14-year olds in our society who are sexually active and could make the same argument that our 16 and 17 year olds have been making - "I'm having sex; why aren't I allowed to talk about it?" But if the ToE did that, I would have to warn my children to stay away. One is a middle school and high school math teacher, her husband is the same only he teaches English and foreign languages. My other daughter is studying now to be a lawyer.

I can assure you that, where the teachers are concerned, absolutely and without hesitation and without one iota of doubt in my mind, if they were registered at a website where sexual discussion took place with children of the same age as those they teach, and this were maliciously or accidently revealed to their Principle or Superindtendent, they would be unemployed in about 5 seconds.

Yes, there are teachers who take this risk. There are teachers who actually have sex with their students and hope they won't get caught; coaches who molest their team members and hope they won't get caught. There are people who do lots of questionable, high risk things; but we are not among them.

This is not a matter of legality, it is a matter of perception. It is not that I will be instantly fired if the ToE lets in 16 year olds. It is that I will never post from my university office and I will never share this site with anyone, for fear the information would get out and my Department Head's perception of me might be irreparably damaged. I have no idea where he stands on this issue and I don't want to find out. I just don't want this concern to spill over into my professional activities. Actually I don't now post from my university office and that is because of the issue explained above - the university does log the sites I visit, it's a cost issue for them and also a copyright issue because I download a lot of material for which the university pays the copyright fees under contract with the publishers - but it would become an active consideration for me, remembering to never, ever log on at work, if our front page disclaimer said 'sex forum - 16 and over welcome.'

There are some people here who post only from work. Either they don't have home computers or they're on dial-up and it's just easier to post from work. They all have the same problem - the problem of navigation info being saved by their employers (this is routine) and the perceptions of their fellow Americans being quite unpredictable with regard to this issue.

That is why moving to a European server does not really solve the problem for us. If there is ever criminal law passed and upheld by the SC, then yes, being on a European server will exempt the site owners from such law and potential prosecution under it. But those who visit the site will still have the url's recorded by their employers if they post from work, will have to be careful whom they refer to the site, etc. The location of the server will not protect them from any negative perceptions associated with the activity itself.

The question before us is not whether some of us are suppressing the rights of others because of Puritan attitudes and paranoia, which is, I believe, how you have framed the question. Rather it is a question of legitimate competing interests. One group of posters want to engage in an activity that is both legitimate and important to them but would put another group of posters at unknown risk. The second group wants to minimize their risk while acknowledging the needs of the first group. We would like to come up with a solution that does not impel either group to leave B77.

Jn

Erunáme wrote:

edit: And don't lawyers study cases? Wouldn't this mean that cases can be talked about in some form. I get the whole confidentiality thing, but if something has happened in the courts, can't that be shared? Just wondering.

I can take this one, in part.

Eru, yes, attorneys study cases, and cases can be talked about in some form. Some cases, some of the time.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of published cases that are available for public inspection. A good number are on the Internet, and a good number more are available via a subscription to a legal research service such as LexisNexis or Westlaw. All of them are available in print, and you could probably get a good look at most by visiting your nearest law school's library.

However, this is not true of all cases. For example, some cases are subject to confidential settlement and cannot necessarily be talked about in any format, even if the court has approved the settlement. Other cases are sealed, such as certain juvenile criminal cases, because of the age of the individuals involved. The fact that something has happened in the courts does not automatically mean that you or I, as citizens, can have access to it.

In addition, I think Voronwe began to answer your question when he explained that he might see well more than one thousand potential cases of a given sort per year, of which perhaps five might be viable to litigate.

So, Voronwe, and other practicing attorneys, could hear thousands of true stories over the course of their careers that will simply never make it to the courts and become matters of public record. In many of those cases, the putative plaintiffs may in reality have experienced some violation of their legal rights - it's just that they might not have success in court for whatever reason (e.g. not enough evidence, inadmissible evidence, unsympathetic plaintiff, inability to pay the legal fees, desire to move on with their lives and not become embroiled with litigation that could drag for years, etc). If, under the laws of the state of California, Voronwe and the person consulting him entered into an attorney-client relationship, then yes, what he knows from conversations with these people would be privileged, and he generally cannot relate it to the New York Times, or board77, unless the client waives the privilege. Even for those cases which make it to court and become a matter of public record, some of the information which the client has communicated to the attorney would still remain privileged.

Does that help at all?

Let me address the other, seperate, technical issue as my legal expertise is limited to the three years of business law I have taken.

tinwe_linto wrote:

Fixer,

Some posters have multiple IP addresses associated with their user names. I, for instance, have several dozen addresses for my posts, even though I only post from two computers (work and home). Other posters have only one address for all of their posts. I think this is called a “static” address. Would it be possible for two posters to have the same static address?

Yes. If one of them was using a cable modem or DSL modem, that would be the static IP address for any machine(s) attached to it. If CC works at the same place as someone else from this board they could be routed through the same outgoing IP address as well. It could also be if they use the same ISP that gives out dynamic IP addresses each time it connects and they just happen to get one previously used by another poster.

I, myself, should have at LEAST two IP addresses for my posts: one for when I post from work and when when I post from home. I might also have another if I post from the coffee shop (which I don't believe I have done, but I might have). I can also post from three or four friends' houses and in such cases I would have their IP address instead of my own. IP address is a good way of tracking down a user at a particular time they posted, but is of limited use over a long timeframe.

I did a lot of research on this stuff when I used to hunt trolls. IP is really handy if you can pin it down to a time, but unless you can trace to that extent it is of limited use. If you want to know who the IP address belongs to, go to http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl and punch in the IP. It will tell you who owns the IP address, which is a good lead on tracking anyone. You generally need a subpoena to get more information from the ISP unless you are good at social engineering.

Very well described, TP. Thank you. .

Fixer,

Thank you.

Is it possible for two people to post from different computers simultaneously (or nearly so) and still show the same IP address?

BTW, you show about 30 IP addresses for your posts, most of which have only one post per address. I have well over 100 addresses for my posts, even though I have only posted from three different locations.

I must admit to being a little bit confused about this:

Estel wrote:

tinwe - I can say with certainty that he is not.

Crazycosh wrote:

I've no idea what a TORC'er is really, I'm guessing it's a rival forum that you have maybe had some trouble with in the past/present?

I actually just happened to stumble upon it following a few urls, I mean you could check your referrers if you really wanted to check...

Estel, I had assumed from your statement that you know who this person is, and I am more than willing to accept your word that my fears are unfounded, but CC seems to be saying (he?) is a newcomer here. Hence the confusion.

I do not feel good about continuing this discussion in this thread, since it is completely off topic, but I don’t know what to do about it.

Signed,

Confused, and not wanting to be the bad guy here.

tinwe: http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... d77#131852