Forum: Author Hangout

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.

So ASSTR is history.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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.

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

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

Not poison, but laced with an aphrodisiac.

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

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.

I have the right to remain silent.

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

do you have the ability to remain silent? :)

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

That was way back when...

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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!!)

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. 😠

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.

and that US Attorney was painted as a zealot

Very small consolation for the woman who she prosecuted.