Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

ASSTR under LEA control???

Wheezer

I just ran across this:

Hello Community,

Alt Sex Stories Text Repository (asstr.org) links have been removed from ******** because
they are considered as insecure to visit. We have been informed by several sources, some of which are trusted,
that they might be under hacker/LEA control, although not yet confirmed or proven.

It's sad to see all those stories go, but security should be our main concern, especially nowadays.
Hence why we recommend everyone to stay away from the asstr.org domain from now on.

This means we had to move some sections around on our link list to get some better visual symmetry.
It will take some time to get used to.

Hopefully we'll see a new story board be launched in the future.

Take care and stay safe!

Admin,

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Gauthier
Switch Blayde

@Wheezer

What is LEA?

Does this mean ASSTR should not be accessed?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

What is LEA?


I would think LEA=Law Enforcement Agency.

Does this mean ASSTR should not be accessed?


If an LEA has taken over ASSTR over pedo stories/child porn, yes it would be best to avoid it like the plague, unless you enjoy having SWAT teams break down your door.

Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

yes it would be best to avoid it like the plague,


So ASSTR is history.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

So ASSTR is history.


If in fact it was taken over by Law Enforcement, it's history.

FSwan

It would be good to find out if this report has any substance.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Wheezer
Ernest Bywater

@FSwan

It would be good to find out if this report has any substance.


True. However, the page:

https://status.asstr.org/

shows the Author's Corner and Web-based Uploads as being out of service. Since these are where you can expect the authors to have direct links from their systems, I'd expect any Law Enforcement Organisation to have them up and running first, due to them giving them the best chance to nail someone.

So it's hard to say if the report is true or not.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Wheezer

@FSwan

It would be good to find out if this report has any substance.


Even the article states that it is not confirmed. How does one confirm something like that?

Wheezer

@Dominions Son

I would think LEA=Law Enforcement Agency.


Correct.

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

unless you enjoy having SWAT teams break down your door.


Is it illegal to have pics of fully clothed females that look under 18?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

Is it illegal to have pics of fully clothed females that look under 18?


Maybe.

Are they related to you?

Are you a professional photographer?

Replies:   Joe Long
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

I'd expect any Law Enforcement Organisation to have them up and running first, due to them giving them the best chance to nail someone.


IF Law Enforcement is running the site, then they are probably looking to nail readers downloading stories, not the authors. The servers would already have most of what they need to nail most of the authors.

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

Amateur photographer & Facebook user. Pics of non-relatives are in public places.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

Amateur photographer & Facebook user. Pics of non-relatives are in public places.


It's one thing if you are taking scenic photos and just capture people incidentally.

However, if you are actually focusing on the people as the subject of the photos, even taken in public places, publishing them (even for free on Facebook) could be legally problematic without signed model releases.

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

No, no...not publishing them. I meant downloading from Facebook. Or maybe snapping the cheerleader at the football game. Fully clothed, just for personal admiration.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Joe Long

@Dominions Son

It's one thing if you are taking scenic photos and just capture people incidentally.


When I take legit scenic photos, such as when being a tourist, I try not to focus too much on individual people, unless they're portraying a way of life like two guys sitting at a table outside a coffee shop.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

unless they're portraying a way of life like two guys sitting at a table outside a coffee shop.


In that case, it could be illegal to publish the photo in any form without signed model releases.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Bondi Beach
Updated:

@Dominions Son


In that case, it could be illegal to publish the photo in any form without signed model releases.


"Could be" but not very likely. Photographing people in a public place where there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" (ETA: generally) does not require a model release to photograph, even in the face of their objection to being photographed. (Although you may get a punch in the nose.)

Nor are there any restrictions on use of such photos—private, for sale, or whatever. That said, it never hurts to get a model release. Save yourself time and hassle.

ETA: The usual caveats apply to the above. If you want an authoritative answer on your legal obligation, consult an attorney. Otherwise, consult the Internet. Or this discussion board, of course.

bb

Replies:   Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

However, if you are actually focusing on the people as the subject of the photos, even taken in public places, publishing them (even for free on Facebook) could be legally problematic without signed model releases.

You're confusing civil law (civil suits by the model) with criminal cases (the fed's convicting you for pedophilia). I'm guessing this is a new attempt for the current administration to strike fear in those promoting the first amendment, so expect some significant lawsuits (probably only one or two, but they'll likely get a LOT of negative press).

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

You're confusing civil law (civil suits by the model) with criminal cases (the fed's convicting you for pedophilia).


No, I'm not. Bot civil and criminal are legal issues dependent on the law.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach

Photographing people in a public place where there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" (ETA: generally) does not require a model release


True, but in many states, publishing the photos does require a model release.

Crumbly Writer

@Joe Long

No, no...not publishing them. I meant downloading from Facebook. Or maybe snapping the cheerleader at the football game. Fully clothed, just for personal admiration.

There's what the law says, and then there's what prosecutors try to fit in under it. There have been many convictions of people posting pictures of their own children in the bathtub to other family members.

There's no telling what some overactive prosecutor will try to charge—and in most cases, they have no hope of gaining a conviction—the entire idea is to strike fear in the hearts of conservative who're sure pedophiles are stalking every corner, hiding in every bathroom, and that (according to Anita Bryant) 'the only gays can become more popular is by converting children'. (replace 'gays' with 'pedos' and you have the current fear, but the same nonsensical argument keeps popping up, time and again).

The key is, if there's ANY doubt about the age of a model, DON'T download it! But for now, it's best to avoid ASSTR like the plague.

Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

No, I'm not. Bot civil and criminal are legal issues dependent on the law.

The Federal LEA is unlikely to charge you with taking pictures without the proper model release. That's a civil matter, NOT a criminal matter. You're argument is 'no, shoplifting and car theft are legal issues too'.

The only time taking a picture of someone matters is if you publish it. If you make money on it, and HAVE no model release, THEN you can be sued by the model in a civil suit. But we're talking about law enforcement taking over ASSTR, which has no bearing on model releases.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Crumbly Writer

But we're talking about law enforcement taking over ASSTR, which has no bearing on model releases.


No, at the moment you are talking about ASSTR. However, I was talking to Joe Long who brought up having photos of fully clothed adult females, and since ASSTR doesn't carry any images I assumed he was going beyond the ASSTR issue and responded in kind.

Replies:   Joe Long  Crumbly Writer
Joe Long

@Dominions Son

No, at the moment you are talking about ASSTR. However, I was talking to Joe Long who brought up having photos of fully clothed adult females, and since ASSTR doesn't carry any images I assumed he was going beyond the ASSTR issue and responded in kind.


I brought up the subject of photos in relation to ASSTR, as some here conjectured that those who visit that site run a risk of having their computers inspected by a LEA.

I don't recall ever visiting ASSTR, and I don't save nudes pics of under 18 girls - but I do have fully clothed pics of under 18 girls. Some I've taken myself, in public places, and strictly for personal enjoyment, and others I've downloaded from Facebook.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

1. ASSTR = alt.sex.stories.text.repository - - it's the repository of text stories posted on the alt.sex.stories newsgroups.

2. In most countries any picture you take is nominally your copyright, with a few exceptions like taking photos on private property without permission.

3. With a few exceptions relating to news events, you can take photos in public places without having to get a release, unless you're taking them in a place where the local authorities have forbidden the taking of photos (many local councils don't permit photos on beaches and public pools now).

4. In most countries any photo that has a person in it where they are identifiable and it's not a news event you must have a model release before you can place it on public display or use it for a commercial purpose. But you don't need a release to keep it as a private snapshot that isn't publicly displayed.

4.a. Yes, the people who post photos of people on Facebook and other social media are in violation of the law as stated above in those countries. However, it's a civil case and most people won't take action, but if they do you're toast.

............

Take photos of people at a riot or in the immediate vicinity of a car accident is a news event - take photos of people walking down the street isn't a news event.

.............

In some countries it's now an offence to have photos of people who appear to be under a certain age unless they're fully clothed and the clothes aren't see through, and it matters not what the relationship is or isn't. Having photos of people who appear to be above that age in any attire, or lack of, is OK. - mind you the countries with those laws do not define what appears to be.

Forgot to include - most countries define photos taken in a public place as of the place depicted in the photos, thus photos taken of a public park from within private property are seen as being photos of a public place, while photos of things on private property from a public place are a violation of privacy and is a criminal offence in some countries. So when you see people taking photos over someone's fence they require the approval of the person living there before they can take photos of things inside the property.

Also, there are some odd issues about photos of people deemed to be public figures.

Replies:   Joe Long  Joe Long
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

but I do have fully clothed pics of under 18 girls. Some I've taken myself, in public places, and strictly for personal enjoyment, and others I've downloaded from Facebook.


While the pictures are technically legal, if you have pictures (even fully clothed) of minor females that you are not related to and the police come knocking on your door looking for child porn it will not go well for you.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp  Joe Long
Capt. Zapp

@Dominions Son

While the pictures are technically legal, if you have pictures (even fully clothed) of minor females that you are not related to and the police come knocking on your door looking for child porn it will not go well for you.


Had an ex-gf report me as having child porn and the local FBI agent paid me a visit. When he told me why he was here I invited him in and let him run his checks on all 3 of my computers - over 400gb of photos including kids and adults in bathing suits as well as some nude adults. While there were a few files his software flagged as 'questionable', the agent deemed they were not child porn. When he left almost 4 hours later he thanked me for my time. I never heard anything else from them. Ex tried to use the 'investigation' against me later in our child custody case. I won that too.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Crumbly Writer

@Dominions Son

No, at the moment you are talking about ASSTR. However, I was talking to Joe Long who brought up having photos of fully clothed adult females, and since ASSTR doesn't carry any images I assumed he was going beyond the ASSTR issue and responded in kind.

Again, my impression was that his question was over his legal liability over possessing the files, not in publishing them for profit. It makes sense to distinguish between the two, warning that there are issues with selling images if you don't legally own the rights to distribute them, but you'd want to address the poster's immediate question, not confuse them over what they'll need to do.

My parents NEVER got a signed release to take pictures of me butt-naked on the living room rug when I was little, or in giving them to my high school to post in the year book years later! They were never arrested for it.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Crumbly Writer

@Joe Long

I don't recall ever visiting ASSTR, and I don't save nudes pics of under 18 girls - but I do have fully clothed pics of under 18 girls. Some I've taken myself, in public places, and strictly for personal enjoyment, and others I've downloaded from Facebook.

Fully clothed is fine, even if there is an occasional panty shot. The biggest issue is child abuse, so the cops are looking for anything which might be coerced (either by you, or by the person who originally took the pictures of kids they were abusing). However, with each prosecutor, they draw the line between what's legal and what's not at different points.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

However, with each prosecutor, they draw the line between what's legal and what's not at different points.

I thought SCOTUS had made clear that suggestive poses in photos can still result in them being ruled as "obscene", even if private areas are covered with clothes. I imagine some photos in fashion magazines could be ruled as child pornography if found in a father's collection of photos of his daughter.
There's also the possibility of prosecutors pursuing cases they know will ultimately fail to further some political agenda.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

There's also the possibility of prosecutors pursuing cases they know will ultimately fail to further some political agenda.

Of your two points, this one is the one most likely to trip up most users. The conviction is unlikely to be held up, but you'll lose hundreds of thousands simply trying to defend yourself from a frivolous government sponsored suit.

Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

My parents NEVER got a signed release to take pictures of me butt-naked on the living room rug when I was little, or in giving them to my high school to post in the year book years later! They were never arrested for it.


Because you were under age at the time the photos were taken and your parents had the right to approve their usage - but it was nasty of them.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

The conviction is unlikely to be held up, but you'll lose hundreds of thousands simply trying to defend yourself from a frivolous government sponsored suit.


and years of being fucked around while they try to out wait you in the hopes you'll give up to get it over with.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

Of your two points, this one is the one most likely to trip up most users.

Yep!
However insane our politicians might get, I am SO GRATEFUL I come from a country that does not elect its public prosecutors and judges.

Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

Yep!
However insane our politicians might get, I am SO GRATEFUL I come from a country that does not elect its public prosecutors and judges.


Yeah, it's left to the rectum cop types to dick you around for a gold star to get a promotion. Same purpose different method but the same process.

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Ross at Play


However insane our politicians might get, I am SO GRATEFUL I come from a country that does not elect its public prosecutors and judges.


The U.S. does not elect (most) prosecutors, and only some states allow for the public voting on judges (something social conservatives consistently attack, and liberal generally don't approve of since they prefer separating the judicial and executive branches), so both bases are the exception, rather than the rule.

In the U.S., unless it's forbidden by the Federal Government or the Constitution (i.e. forbidden by the Judicial Branch) states are free to pass any idiotic law they desire!

But, seeing as your country passed the MOST restrictive 'child porn' literary law, I don't need to tell YOU about idiotic laws being passed by out-of-control legislatures.

Note: What's more common, is that non-elected prosecutors launch a major 'socially conservative' attack to generate attention before they launch an attempt for a higher office (often for a governorship or state office).

Dominions Son

@Capt. Zapp

Had an ex-gf report me as having child porn and the local FBI agent paid me a visit.


That was way back when and the FBI. Today and with local police, you run the risk of them seeing photos of unrelated minors as making you a child molester looking for victims.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Because you were under age at the time the photos were taken and your parents had the right to approve their usage - but it was nasty of them.


Way back when maybe. There was a case in the US about a decade ago where a professional photographer got prosecuted on child porn charges for having naked baby on bear skin rug photos of her own kids.

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

if you have pictures (even fully clothed) of minor females that you are not related to and the police come knocking on your door looking for child porn it will not go well for you.


The definition of porn has become quite expansive when you can't appreciate a pretty girl's face.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Joe Long

@Ernest Bywater

In some countries it's now an offence to have photos of people who appear to be under a certain age


That'll ruin the porn careers of flat chested girls.

Joe Long

@Ernest Bywater

So when you see people taking photos over someone's fence they require the approval of the person living there before they can take photos of things inside the property.


There've been some US court cases about that. IIRC, if your inside your house you have an expectancy that people won't look in the window. If you've put a fence around the yard that blocks the view there's a degree of protection from people taking effort to overcome the obstacle, but I believe the government taking aerial photos is OK

Replies:   sejintenej
Dominions Son

@Joe Long

The definition of porn has become quite expansive when you can't appreciate a pretty girl's face.

The problem not that it will be considered porn.

If you have a large collection of photos of unrelated minors, you run the risk that local police will decide that you are a (potential) child molester and that the purpose of the photos is victim selection.

Replies:   Joe Long  REP
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

Today ... you run the risk of them seeing ... you (as) a child molester looking for victims.

Most days in Indonesia I take a pocket full of sweets with me when I leave home for my daily walk to the mall. The locals all know that I will give one sweet to every child I come across as long as they last.
I cannot imagine doing that in a Western country.
The Pedo Police would certainly take me in on suspicion, assuming I had not already captured by the Dental Police. :-)

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Joe Long

@Dominions Son

you run the risk that local police will decide that you are a (potential) child molester and that the purpose of the photos is victim selection.


That makes sense

REP

@Dominions Son

police will decide that you are a (potential) child molester


They would probably flip a coin to decide between child molester or child pornographer. Either way you would have a problem.

Capt. Zapp

@Dominions Son

That was way back when...


Wasn't that long ago, less than 15 years.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
sejintenej

@Joe Long


There've been some US court cases about that. IIRC, if your inside your house you have an expectancy that people won't look in the window.

USA perhaps, not in the UK. A man got tried for indecent exposure in his own bedroom or bathroom after a complaint by a meddlesome elderly lady.

Eventually the scene moved to the lady's house and she admitted that she had to get a ladder and climb up to be high enough in order to be able to see the man. On that alone the case was dismissed.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Ross at Play


I cannot imagine doing that in a Western country.

The Pedo Police would certainly take me in on suspicion


Not only that. People poison candy. It really put a damper on Halloween.

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

People poison candy. It really put a damper on Halloween.


All of the confirmed cases of people tampering with Halloween candy involved adults targeting a specific child and the adult in question was a relative of the child or a friend of the family.

There is not one confirmed case of someone tampering with Halloween candy to harm children with whom they have no preexisting relationship with.

Replies:   Bondi Beach
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

People poison candy. It really put a damper on Halloween.

But perhaps not for the Halloween writing contest. :-)

Crumbly Writer

@Capt. Zapp

Wasn't that long ago, less than 15 years.

In terms of prosecution crazes, 15 years can be a VERY long time! Just look at the difference between SOL and ASSTR during an even shorter period.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

People poison candy. It really put a damper on Halloween.

But perhaps not for the Halloween writing contest.

Sounds like the perfect Halloween contest entry, poisoning children with contaminated story books (hopefully without clowns or zombies).

Bondi Beach

@Dominions Son

There is not one confirmed case of someone tampering with Halloween candy to harm children with whom they have no preexisting relationship with.


Heck. There go the stories of razor blades concealed in apples, I guess.

On the other hand, no one hands out and no parent lets a kid accept anything other than pre-wrapped candy these days, at least around where I live. Probably no kid wants an apple, either. So apparently the poison stories worked.

bb

Replies:   Dominions Son
helmut_meukel

@sejintenej

USA perhaps, not in the UK. A man got tried for indecent exposure in his own bedroom or bathroom after a complaint by a meddlesome elderly lady


Hmm, I remember some streets in english towns with small houses built in a long row. They had no front yard and beside the front door just one large window usually without blinds. Any passerby could see into their living room.

That was in the mid-seventies and my last visit to the UK was more than 20 years ago. I don't know if these houses are still there and still without blinds or curtains.
I don't want to speculate about the mindset necessary to live there comfortably.

HM.

Replies:   sejintenej  madnige
Dominions Son

@Bondi Beach

There go the stories of razor blades concealed in apples, I guess.


razor blades in apples was one of the ones that actually happened.

The thing the urban legend gets wrong is that the razor blade apples weren't handed out to all trick or treaters, just to one kid who was somewhat distantly related to the perpetrator. The kid and his parent's knew the perpetrator, but were unaware that he had a grudge against the parents.

Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

But perhaps not for the Halloween writing contest.


Not poison, but laced with an aphrodisiac. But that story would have to be on ASSTR, not SOL.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Not poison, but laced with an aphrodisiac.

That's just sick!
I like it. :-)

Replies:   awnlee jawking
John Demille

@Switch Blayde

But that story would have to be on ASSTR, not SOL.


Why? I've had 14 and 15 year olds come to my door trick or treating. They're the late ones!

Replies:   Bondi Beach
PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey and the District of Columbia appoint their chief prosecutors. In the other 47 states, they are elected. The elected chief prosecutors generally appoint their own staffs.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey and the District of Columbia appoint their chief prosecutors. In the other 47 states, they are elected. The elected chief prosecutors generally appoint their own staffs.


And that has what to do with the comment of mine to which you replied?

sejintenej

@helmut_meukel

Hmm, I remember some streets in english towns with small houses built in a long row. They had no front yard and beside the front door just one large window usually without blinds. Any passerby could see into their living room.

Just browsed on Google view the street where I was brought up - rather as you describe. Street so narrow the cars parked half on the pavements and just enough room for a car to get past them. Ground floors all have blinds or opaque net curtains and at first floor level some open, some curtains. Generally curtains would be closed if someone was changing clothes or there would be an outcry from neighbours.
Going back to the late 1940's the front ground floor room- the "parlour" was furnished for when the priest came to visit - otherwise it was never ever entered. I think we had curtains there but if they were open or closed I don't know.

The street you describe would be a poor area - perhaps a mining town or close to a port. 20 years ago "decency" at home was the thing though I do remember a pair of sisters who were often to be seen in their minimalist underwear - definitely rare.

Mindset; it was what you were brought up with and you often didn't know any better.
Heck, in a later house we didn't have mains power until late 1950's and certainly no TV because there was no transmission arial. (Houses there now start at several millions of pounds!!)

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

That's just sick!


Is that the adult meaning of sick (very bad) or the yoof meaning of sick (very good)?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

Is that the adult meaning of sick (very bad) or the yoof meaning of sick (very good)?

I have the right to remain silent. Anything I said could and would be used against me.

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

I have the right to remain silent.


Yes, you have the right to remain silent, but do you have the ability to remain silent? :)

Joe Long

@Dominions Son

Yes, you have the right to remain silent, but do you have the ability to remain silent? :)


And, you have the right to remain silent even if they don't tell you. The US Bill of Rights lists pre-existing natural rights that the government can't legislate away.

The police reading a suspect their right, per the Miranda ruling, is to protect the police, not the accused. If a defendant says, "I didn't know I had a right to remain silent when I confessed" the police can say "Well, we told you." It's a CYA for the cops, but you always have that right.

Ernest Bywater

@Ross at Play

I have the right to remain silent.


especially if you're a mime.

Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

do you have the ability to remain silent? :)

Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

Okay. No, I don't, damn you, DS.

madnige

@helmut_meukel

some streets in english towns with small houses built in a long row. They had no front yard and beside the front door just one large window usually without blinds. Any passerby could see into their living room.


Like the Brotton Brickyard estate, where I used to live?

sejintenej

@madnige

Like the Brotton Brickyard estate, where I used to live?

or
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.5868989,-5.9275659,3a,75y,95.31h,79.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX2ZBQLWVamhjO4Px9aa8MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

helmut_meukel
Updated:

@madnige

A bit older looking and the windows were larger and all houses looked the same exept the colour of door, window frames, gutter and drain-pipe. Often the same strong colour for all 4 elements and always another colour as the neighbors.

HM.

Bondi Beach

@John Demille

Why? I've had 14 and 15 year olds come to my door trick or treating. They're the late ones!


When they start to show up it's time to turn off the lights and retreat to a back room. I wish they'd at least make an effort at a costume. No, "gangsta" is not a costume, except when worn by genuine gangstas.

bb

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


You're confusing civil law (civil suits by the model) with criminal cases (the fed's convicting you for pedophilia). I'm guessing this is a new attempt for the current administration to strike fear in those promoting the first amendment, so expect some significant lawsuits (probably only one or two, but they'll likely get a LOT of negative press).


Generally speaking, the Government doesn't sue. It prosecutes and fines. So no government is likely to file a lawsuit. However, they might decide to prosecute.

But based on past discussions of U.S. Laws and interpretations. I'd have doubts of U.S. LEA involvement with ASSTR unless there happened to be something particularly heinous uncovered by techs while trying to resurrect the ailing server and services, which I admit is possible. (It may have even been the ASSTR Admins who did so in such a case. While hard to imagine, I'm sure there's even a line where Laz might not just simply decline a submission, but refer it to law enforcement)

However, I think their interest would be in whatever that specific content is/was, and the persons tied to that content. Not everything else. Although those other persons might still see a low level of scrutiny by association and opportunity. (Hence advisories to avoid getting associated)

For the Americans it's simple enough as long as they avoided the imagery(and don't partake in that stuff anywhere else). There is no known effort to prosecute for possession or consumption of texts in the US. It is the production(authors) and distribution(server operator) they've gone after historically. Imagery is an entirely different ballgame, and they've been known to try for everyone in such cases. For people outside the US, YMMV and it becomes a question of if InterPol becomes involved and what your own Governments may do.

Most likely use of any data a LEA in the US would make from ASSTR is the potential "breadcrumb trail" it provides in identifying consumers of "pedo" content and seeing what else those people are into that is either flat out illegal or otherwise in a legal grey zone. It basically helps provide circumstantial evidence (probable cause) that illegal activity may be underway and that either further discreet investigation, or an outright search(warrant) is warranted.

That said, at the speed those operations typically move, it could be a year of more before anything happens, assuming a LEA did take it over. IF a LEA is involved, my money would be on one of more pedo rings getting busted open, and prosecution will be over imagery or actual acts. They may throw in "additional charges" as it relates to fictional(ized) stories, as has happened previously, but the focus will be "on the other stuff."

Replies:   Joe Long  Dominions Son
Joe Long

Just now reading a piece rating Harrison Ford's movie roles and it linked to a clip from American Graffiti, where Bob Falfa (31 year old Ford) drives alongside the car of and teases John Milner (28 yo Paul Le Mat) who has as his passenger/date Carol (13 yo Mackenzie Phillips)

Times have changed

Joe Long

@Not_a_ID

Most likely use of any data a LEA in the US would make from ASSTR is the potential "breadcrumb trail" it provides in identifying consumers of "pedo" content and seeing what else those people are into that is either flat out illegal or otherwise in a legal grey zone.


That was the discussion - if people are going to ASSTR to read about 8 year olds, perhaps they have pics of the same on their home computers.

I read and write only about physically mature females of the species.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

There is no known effort to prosecute for possession or consumption of texts in the US.


There hasn't been a concerted effort to do so nation wide. However, a number of US authors of pedo stories have been brought up on criminal obscenity charges by individual federal or local prosecutors over stories.

For example the woman behind the Red Rose website who was a victim of child sexual abuse and wrote the stories on the Red Rose website as a form of therapy was charged in federal court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/28obscene.html

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@Dominions Son

Scooter Libby wrote porn!

I contend that my book has artistic & literary value. Sure there are teenagers having sex, but to the best of my memories of that age it's a rather realistic depiction of teen life in the late 1970's.

Joe Long

Afraid of public trial, Fletcher plead guilty to six counts of distributing obscene materials online in August 2008. She was sentenced to a term of probation of 60 months, with 6 months of home detention, a fine of $1,000, and a special assessment of $600.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Joe Long

Which would be the distribution part of "production and distribution" of such materials. That they didn't seem to prosecute anybody who used the site should demonstrate how tenuous the prosecutor thought those charges were on their own.

In other words, they failed to find anything else to charge the users with that remained within the scope of their investigation.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Joe Long
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

In other words, they failed to find anything else to charge the users with that remained within the scope of their investigation.


True, but that was a federal case. There's a whole host of things that state/local LE can go after that wouldn't fall under federal jurisdiction.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son


True, but that was a federal case. There's a whole host of things that state/local LE can go after that wouldn't fall under federal jurisdiction.


Well, IIRC, the ASSTR server was in the San Francisco Bay area, so it could be California pursuing the investigation, but I would put better odds on a Federal Case if a LEA is now operating it. The locals would probably just shut it down and confiscate it all.

Replies:   Wheezer
Wheezer

@Not_a_ID

Well, IIRC, the ASSTR server was in the San Francisco Bay area, so it could be California pursuing the investigation, but I would put better odds on a Federal Case if a LEA is now operating it.


Is there any way to learn if ASSTR actually has been taken over? It was just a week or so ago that we were discussing the site getting back up and running right.

Dominions Son

@Wheezer

Is there any way to learn if ASSTR actually has been taken over?


If someone has direct contact info for the ASSTR admins, maybe.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Joe Long

@Not_a_ID

In other words, they failed to find anything else to charge the users with that remained within the scope of their investigation.


and that US Attorney was painted as a zealot

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Joe Long


and that US Attorney was painted as a zealot


Very small consolation for the woman who she prosecuted.

Replies:   Joe Long
Joe Long

@Dominions Son

I inferred the descriptions to mean the prosecutor was very driven in a self-chosen type of crime. Not that it was any fun for the defendant, but all the prosecution garnered was probation and a $1000 fine for the author and no charges against the customers.

Gauthier
Updated:

@Wheezer


they might be under hacker/LEA


Any clue regarding the reason of that determination?

Only thing I saw is:

1 There is a new and less experienced web admin he is actively trying to fix bugs.

2 The hosting has been moved from California to Salt Lake City, Utah.
(I may be wrong about that, not all hosting history services concur.)

However, Rey del Sexo still seems to be there.

sejintenej

@Wheezer

Is there any way to learn if ASSTR actually has been taken over? It was just a week or so ago that we were discussing the site getting back up and running right.

Reference all the comments about FBI etc involvement the original statement suggested that ASSTR MIGHT be under HACKER or LEA control.

Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

If someone has direct contact info for the ASSTR admins, maybe.


Not entirely reliable, they could be under a restraining order preventing disclosure. Or some kind of plea bargain/immunity deal. 😠

dennyw0713
Updated:

All this is entertaining--but so much fluff insofar as the speculation about ASSTR is concerned. I know the ASSTR primary admin personally, and we've exchanged many emails about the problems with the site.

It's completely down now, and it may be that he has physically removed the hardware from the hosting location. I know that was something he wanted to get done asap to save money. I've fired off a couple emails to him--to an address not connected with ASSTR-and we'll see what I hear back.

Oh, I've been associated with the ASSM newsgroup via being one of the moderators for the entirety of the current century. That moderation is done under the aegis of ASSTR.

Back to Top