I got suspended

Several years ago I attended a public event of country western dancing. It was free and sponsored by the city government. Open to the public anyone could come, it was on public land. I took pictures of people dancing. I was also dancing and had pictures of me taken with my camera on auto. I took the photos and uploaded them to my domain with text of the event with peoples names, made comments about how great the event was. After about 6 years later (I assume) by google search someone decided to do a search for their name and found these pictures. (I also assume) they contacted my host to have them removed. My host shut down my site stating in quotes "Based on the sensitive nature of the content we require you to remove the content". This is not porn, not people in drunken stupor, not in compromising situations. Just pictures of people square dancing in public and I am in the pictures. I know on youtube you can dispute a claim but why is it that web hosters don't care and they just shut you down? Also what evidence did the complainer provide? Do they have to prove anything? Can anyone say that they are the ones in the photos and don't want their picture on the net? Do I have a right to find out as to who complained? I contacted my host asking what was the sensitive nature and they refuse to reply.

What is the name of this host? Quit protecting them. And while EIG has (MANY!!!) faults, something this ridiculous is not one of them.

any reason why all those oppose me on this thread is ouitside of the United States even the one who supplied a few case references but those cases were OUTSIDE of the U.S.?

Oh the release is always in fine print, never posted directly on signs, etc. The signs always say the obvious. Dogs on leashes Dont pee on the bushes Park closes at 9 etc Then at the bottom there is always a city or government code listed and buried on page 412 of that code is the statement of release. I know all National Parks have this as well as every "common area" that is city controlled in my area. So I just assumed most cities did this, but now I will check when I travel.

StableHost which is one of the host that was refered to me from one of the people on this thread, stablehost said and I quote We are able to provide all you need except the option to upload a cPanel backup, it can't be done. Now why would this be an issue with them if they are using cPanel and cPanel has a Backup Wizard?

Does anyone know if LiquidWeb got bought out by Endurance? Because a friend said they are hosted by LiquidWeb but the nameservers are ns1.bluehostweb.com

jack, can i kindly ask what the page you created is for?

I thought your host would have spoken to you first considering the content. Personally I would look for another host. Since they wont even discuss it with you. In the past I have always been given the actual complaint with all the details of the complainant that the DC has received themselves.

well he wrote "hostxxxxator" probably is hostgator. At least they say it's their policy and not a law, so you accepted their policy when you purchased the service. If you don't want to remove the content they don't allow you to upload (wich you agreed to when accepting the terms) just change your provider.

The UK is an Orwellian Police State with cameras everywhere. The government can take photos of you and so can the poparazzi. But I suspect in a Nanny State the government doesn't like competition so they out law you taking photos but they get a joy doing it. BTW I responded to my host after they completely shut down ALL of my sites (asking why does the violation still exist if I removed the content) - even the ones that weren't in violation in the morning and about 18 hours later no response. I'm thinking they don't care about my loss of income from sites that weren't in violation of THEIR policy.

People get complaints on facebook too. Not everyone wants to be a part of public domain.

You provided a list of host and I contacted Stablehost and they said We are able to provide all you need except the option to upload a cPanel backup, it can't be done.

No. LW is not EIG. That domain is not owned by LiquidWeb or EIG. It sounds to me as if you "friend" is using a kiddie host with LiquidWeb servers. Either that, or his setting are simply wrong.

So many years ago. Could be testing HTML skills.

They said We write to notify you that we have been contacted regarding personal information located at: Based on the sensitive nature of the content we require you to remove the content within 48 hours. Best Regards, Compliance Team Personal information? A person's name and a picture of them dancing. Is that REALLY personal information and is that SENSITIVE?

With regards to your question of 'how can social media like FB... etc. get away with it'. You need to read ALL of the fine print when you sign up to a social media website and know what you're agreeing to when you check that little box that says 'I agree to ...' Sucks they won't work with you. I'll ask what others have said. Why are you protecting them if you're so against what they did? Call them out already. This is why we have reviews of webhosting companies is it not?

Sounds like it is time to move on to a new host if they are still not replying... Good Luck with your search Plenty of good hosts here, just stay away from and EIG companies and you should be good. Do you have backups you can restore on the new host?

No, this email came from their LEGAL DEPARTMENT not IT. Furthermore your birthdate is also public record, drivers license is public record, the land you own, the car you own, the town your were born in. It's been well past 24 hours I'm still down and no response.

While I agree with you that just because it's in the Terms of Service/AUP/etc... does not necessarily make it legally binding... It does set forth a set of expectations for both parties. If the expectation set is contrary to law - such as the Terms of Service saying you're obligated to do something that's not legal - it won't stand. But if the ToS says "You may not upload any pictures of our CEO," followed by the punishment being that they'll terminate your account - they very well could terminate your account if you upload a picture of their CEO. Would you have violated the law? No. Would you have violated the agreement that you had with your provider? Yes. Would the provider be violating the law by executing the repercussion spelled out in the agreement? Most likely not. There's a big difference between what is permitted by law and what is permitted by agreement between a provider and a client. If the only thing that mattered was the law and the agreement itself didn't matter - no providers would have agreements and they would be totally pointless.

I'm bumping an old thread intentionally as it's one I think has a lot of interesting debate. Mostly the arguments of @ ServerManagement @ kpmedia some of which would come into effect in 2018. This is something Hawk Host still struggles with as a smaller provider. We can't send every instance of these complaints to our counsel. An example issue would be someone who is "public" is complaining about a website that outlines what they're doing and names them. We would then get a complaint stating they're damaging their reputation / libel. This is becoming more frequent. In my *personal* opinion a lot of these are not actionable. As a company we have to worry about liability / how we respond. I'd be very curious if the tones have changed at all between the people debating back and forth. After re-reading the thread I still think this issue was an instance of a trigger happy host -- which I can't disagree with either. A lot of customers provide very little to no revenue. We provide hosting plans for < $5.00 -- as plenty of others do. How far do you stick your neck out for them? Are we opening ourselves up to potential issues down the road? Thoughts?

Fair enough, but since there is disagreement about showing those photos online arent there some generic photos that could be used for testing html skills? After all you say its for testing.

Is your site hosted in the EU by any chance?

While I too would like to know who this host is to add to my "stay 10,000 feet away from at all times list" - It may be smart for the OP to keep that to himself until he migrates to a new host to prevent retailiation. As sad as it is, there have been a few hosts who have held the customer backups ransom under threat due to posts negitive posts on WHT.

I downloaded what I could, even the individual sql databases. The user kpmedia posted a link of his reviews of host he reccomends. One of them was siteground. When I looked them up yelp had pages of 1 star reviews and all said to stay away. Just wondering how trusted is his review list is?

If the mayor was dancing with prostitutes then how is that defamation when he is and in public?

I took a look at Stablhost TOS. I have a mailing list which people sign up for. It's not a big list but it is a list of confirmed and valued people. This list of mine is runned by an enternal stand alone program by DADA mail also known as Mojo mail. Stablehost TOS does not allow this type of program on their servers even on their dedicated servers. I guess they don't handle big corporations.

Just found this thread, and the host sounds like a kid on a power-tripping high; please tell us who’s the amateur, so that people can avoid the service .

Jack, Do you know Sarah? Just asking, kind of seems like she may be someone you know.

Hosted in USA

Read their terms and conditions and look if there any violance. As the provider if you can just remove the post rather than suspend entire site.

That wold be me. And you're correct: nothing unethical, illegal, civilly actionable, etc. With some caveats. Where things get sticky is use and intent, and that's where defamation, harassment (ie "doxing" for the kiddies), commercial use (non-editorial), etc, come into play. But that hasn't been ascertained in this thread. And anyway, court orders generally prescribe this action (ie, restraining orders, etc), not a company in an industry ascribing to be "content neutral" (except in the most extreme situations, as we're now seeing with neo-Nazi sites). But like I said earlier: if you don't want to be photographed in public, then stay home. Don't go out. Don't drive on roads, enter stores, attend sporting events, etc. Nothing. Pretend you're Sandra Bullock in "The Net" (1995). Public is public. Read all the definitions: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/public What I'm seeing here smells like mini-SLAPP, aided by a host. I'm betting the host caved under worthless threats. Or, again, a clueless employee at the host -- though it's seeming less and less likely now. This appears to be entirely merit-less. Logical fallacy (straw man). Nowhere in the world can you publish "what you want". Nowhere. Not even the most lawless cesspool excuse of a country. Everywhere has community standards. Nobody claimed that in the thread. What many are claiming is that the host has taken actions above and beyond accepted norms, even for an EU country (which has a "right to be forgotten" law that most in USA see as government overreach, creating a needless system that is often abused).

Community centers here (in Toronto) are really strict with this rule now...and I only found out when I was about to shoot a phone video of my daughters playing a sport. The staff started yelling at me like a fire drill had occurred. I told them no one was else was in the frame and just my daughters, and they said there is a zero photo or video policy. Now if it is during a class that they used to do, usually the last class would allow for parents to take pictures...but any other time is prohibited...and I don't blame them. Even pictures of my daughters and their friends, I won't post them. I could ask the parents for permission, but its just safer and easier to not do it. The more you know!!!

Maybe I'm blind - but I'm not seeing this - can you point out which section exactly makes you believe this?

just get a host that specializes in privacy. i can direct you to some hosts that won't suspend your site until they get hit with government pressure lol

Know her, knew her. Last time I saw her was about 3 years ago at a resataurant for lunch. Why?

Yes, it is really sensitive personal information. You can't post picture and name of someone without asking, and if they complain about that you must erase this data.

I want to add that they never asked if I had permission. They just said to remove it. END OF STORY.

If you are on a cPanel host, see if you can get a complete cpanel backup as this would be very easy to restore on a new host. Use recommendations as start, but then also search for customer reviews... remember that most happy customers don't post reviews so all bad reviews about a popular company is not necessarily bad. Also, no reviews about a company who has been around for a while is probably a good thing! A lot of review sites are paid for their referrals, so they don't show the best, but those who pay the highest comm. Stay away from EIG (Bluehost, Hostgator, ASO, and many more) you are guaranteed a bad experience.

Its not - as long as you can prove the prostitutes are indeed prostitutes if challenged (words I thought I would never utter on WHT) - and the photo was taken in a place the mayor should not have had an expectation of privacy.

Where it says Examples of unacceptable material then it gives a list and in that list it says Bulk Email Scripts When I told them about my needs for creating email forwarders they pointed out the section #3 of spamming. Now I don't know why they would point this out specificly but I assume that by creating an email forwarder that is provided in cPanel is a big no no.

Where do you live? picture and name is obviously public information

The event was 8 years ago. She's around 28 now but over 18 at the time.

So then how do so many people on facebook do it as well as having your mug on youtube

I get so tired or reading this. ToS/AUP/etc is NOT necessarily legally binding or enforceable when it directly contradicts your rights as a citizen, and the norms of consumerism. You can write whatever nonsense you want into "fine print", but courts can, will, and do nullify said nonsense. Anything atypical is often seen the onus of the company to draw your attention to it, and not attempt to bury it. I could write "by signing up to this service, you agree that I can eat your first born with ketchup". And I doubt most would ever read that line, gleefully signing up for the service. But when you show up on the customer's doorstep with a bottle of Heinz, you're going to go hungry. This issue is more likely the action of a clueless person at the helm.

What about migrating email accounts and content and cPanel forwarders?

I think I paid for as three year plan and I am pretty sure next month in September my time is up. I've already download my cPanel back up zip file so I will be moving right along. I'm just wonding how many have moved right along with me and before and after me?

Ah. Yeah - well - so long as you're not sending spam you would probably be OK. At the end of the day I don't know of any providers that have issues with legitimate mailings. It's SPAM that providers hate. That said - if they say your usage won't fit their services unfortunately you're going to have to find an alternative.

What does "public" mean? Either you are a public figure, or you are not. Correct. No. Correct. That's very anti-consumer, and I vehemently disagree with any cowardly host that does so. Compare that to operations like Namecheap, EuroVPS, DirectNIC, and even Godaddy, which have taken well-publicized stands for customer's rights. Part of your duty as a hosting provider is to protect your customers. Security isn't always technical, not just malware.

Is she famous, infamous, a public personality? If no, she still has the right to control the use of her likeness, even in public settings. This is why you'll see the occasional blurred face in a published photo or in video productions filmed in public places (those are the individuals who wouldn't sign a release).

You could always put a goofy smiley face over the head of the person and leave the name (lots of people have the same name)

Wait... So you mean I did not have to eat little timmy? Yup - exactly this.

If you have the cPanel backup, everything is transferred, no need to change email passwords or anything, it is an exact copy of what you see when logging in to your current host's cPanel.

Interesting, because my initial thought when I read the post before reading any other responses...someone in a photo may have been with someone they shouldn't be with...or somewhere they shouldn't. A person in that photo could have been with someone who their legally suppose to stay away from...maybe legally not allowed in that park, venue, or State, of in some legal case where a photo could sway the outcome. Who knows. Look at it as them saying Good Bye and time for you to move on...to a better host

cPanel requires root access to upload backups. They can migrate you, but you cannot self-migrate. Agreed. When a website has no contact info (not even an email), the owner of the site is unreasonable. That's what often triggers a no-contact DMCA/etc contact to a host. Most people try a direct contact first. That wasn't his question. The question was (essentially) "Why do such laws exist to begin with?" -- but again, noting his situation is explicitly exempted from those laws to begin with. And this is why such nonsense claims should be tossed in the trash, not acted upon. Government officials would usually contact you. In USA, it's the US Marshals. For one thing, having a Marshal contact you will be far more scary than a weenie little web host deleting your site. The former results in permanent (usually voluntary) take-down, the latter is just an obstacle that results in a new host. No, never. You have the right to see a takedown, except if it were something like FISA. Too many hosts are woefully ignorant when it comes to legal processes. Calm down. If you go down the path of being trollish, you'll lose support here. Stay professional, just the facts. It's a balance. Also note that NOT enforcing it evenly can result in legal consequences. This is a big reason why the CloudFlare/etc DailyStormer issues is so tricky. CloudFlare claims neutrality, but said neutrality is now under question since the takedown. After the fact, they're now stating it was because the neo Nazis supposedly stated that CloudFlare was their partner (or some such). We've not heard the end of that one. It could have implications for torrents sites. Lawyers are already pouncing on this. In some ways, it can also stifle the speech of the CEO now, as you don't want him saying "we don't like that site" (even though they continue to service it) -- which was the original takedown reason for the DS site. So, back to your example... A site with the photo of the CEO with a dunce cap Photshopped on -- MikeDVBsucks.com -- complaining how its the worst host ever. I know, silly to have such a site on that host itself, but it happens. It's not illegal, but actually already against the ToS of many hosts. They don't want to host "anti" content that harms them. But, at the same time, you cannot have a photo on MikeDVBawesome.com. It's uneven. If you had explicit "no photo" clause in the ToS, you just watered it down, and that's the chink in your armor that can cause backlash. This is why most ToS have weasel "whatever we feel like" type verbiage, but it's not an actual defense. All that said, you can choose who your customers are. But even that can have consequences, when others force you to divest yourself of a customer (which is where the CloudFlare issues can head to). Ars had some good writings on the CloudFlare issue in the past week or so. Ask them again. Re-explain yourself. Tell them what you want to do. They will say 'yay' or 'nay'. Stablehost is a good operation. As MikeDVB said (also owner of a good operation), don't be a spammer, and you'll usually be fine. At worst, host the site at Stablehost/etc, and use Sendgrid/etc (SMTP service) for the outbound mailings.

Apparently quoting your message leads to monstrous formatting so I'm going to wing it. Perhaps you took my statement too bluntly. What I was trying to say is when should a host cut ties with a customer as they're causing more problems than they're worth (I'm aware this sounds bad)? At which point is the provider opening themselves up to litigation / liability? I think the revenue portion *is important* even if it sounds anti-consumer. We do our best to protect our customers -- we tell plenty of people sending in complaints to that they're not substantiated and or to provide additional information for us to act upon it (IE: forwarding it to a customer or anything else). That being said it's a slippery slope. As a smaller company we don't have in-house counsel and have to forward stuff to our normal counsel. This is not cheap. I'd say we're fortunate to be able to afford these luxuries however a large amount of providers cannot do this. How does is a smaller provider supposed to juggle this? Where is the line drawn? We're all trying to run businesses which means we want to make customers happy but we also want to ensure we make money. Is it logical spending $1,000 of billable time attempting to defend a customer spending $5 for a year of hosting while opening ourselves up to a bigger lawsuit? Or should we say unfortunately we cannot allow you on our network due to the burden? I know where I stand ethically but I also know where I stand as a business owner. * To be clear I'm speaking on my own behalf and not of my company. It's something that I struggle with morally & ethically. It's easy for a lot of people to say "do the right thing!" without having to deal with the implications. There is much more nuance here. Try to think about said nuance before attempting to be righteous.

Just curious as to why some people want the photos up while some want them taken down. If they are only being used for testing your coding skills, you know what the heck just use generic photos. Why do you insist on them being used?

So far all the replies are from other countries other than USA. I find it hard to believe that a picture and a name is sensitive information when these things are all over social media.

i expected a better response, or at least something more to this thread point instead of a generic response. but anyway.

If I download this zipped file can it be used with Plesk or other control panels?

You almost made it to 20k posts without discussing prostitute paparazzi legal issues. Oh well.

The bold part of your statement alone means to not take it personal, and the back and forth by many was not needed. If other social aspect of this person has been hiding or deleted, then; - something of a serious matter is going on in this persons life - the person may be involved in some form of legal situation - the person may have passed away Whatever the reason...it's not you. The host could have dealt with this better, but chose not to. The reason behind why it occurred is unknown to you or anyone here until you can talk directly with the person, or someone close to that person to find what's happening. Until then, you can only put out your own fire, which is the need of a new web host. Cases where a murder was involved...almost anything connected to the individuals online are taken down within hours. Police have divisions to deal with anything online, or offline with online connections. Social media accounts marked private while they investigate. Websites with images, taking down.

If you're doing that often, you're too scared of some boogeyman. Again, threats are free, action is not. As host, you also have protections as mere provider, not the site owner. As host, you also have a duty to your customers, not some loudmouth trollish a-hole keyboard warrior that fires off nastygram emails in an attempt to quash websites he/she (probably he) doesn't like. I'm just not seeing where this is coming from. Indeed, it is nuanced. But common sense should tell you when the site own is wrong (example: posting revenge sexting photo) or right (example: why the local mayor is a moron).

That's for commercial use

It's the pathetic world we live in .... Dump the host as if they wont explain they are rubbish!

Well guess what? I got another nasty email today. This time they shut down ALL of my websites. Yes I have many. About 12. Some are commercial that generate money. So even after I removed what they wanted me to remove they went ahead and shut down All of my sites anyway. Here is their email. Please be advised all your websites have been disabled for failure to remove allegedly infringing material within 48 hours pursuant to our prior notice. You should still have cPanel and FTP access to be able to make changes to the files for your websites. Once the infringing material is completely removed from ALL of your websites and your hosting account is no longer violating Terms of Service please let us know by replying to this email. Upon a successful review of your sites all restrictions on your account will be lifted. Please reply with any questions. Best Regards, Notice how they said ALLEGEDLY. So nothing has been proven, we just think a picture of you is good enough to violate our terms. But I didn't fail to remove them as I did indeed remove what they wanted removed. I removed the page and the images from the image folder. Are they incompetent or just a$$holes?

Are you referring to the zipped complete cpanel backup? I don't think so... you are probably best off going to another cPanel host.

For one thing, you can't call them "prostitutes" in the caption, unless they've been previously convicted to that crime (assuming its a crime in that locale). I don't want to get too far into this example. It opens a can of worms with arrest vs. conviction, "allegedly", etc. And it can skate into defamation if captioned wrong. Such things are really case-by-case. Look at past Eliot Spitzer (New York) coverage for an idea of what would need to be stated. Or Rob Ford (Toronto). Also noting the mayor is a public official, and his capacity to "remain private" is diminished (and yes, in UK too).

Your statement has a lot of good points. But the person is still living and still doing tours. It's a rural area of sparce small towns but certainly a tourist trap. I suspect their face has ended up in many places online such as FB vacation photos as people take pictures while on tours. This person is an online writer. So, you can read my stuff but don't take my picture.

Very aware of our safe harbor. That being said if things start sliding into a certain direction we need to contemplate the consequences. I'm not here to talk specifically about our company as much as raising concerns / questions smaller providers may have. We have a (in my opinion) firm grasp on these situations. Yes, I alluded to how our company handles these. I'm trying to paint a broad picture here to also include providers who might not be able to afford that peace of mind (IE: if things escalate). We agree again. As noted before I'm trying to get the take of other providers as I know where we stand. I think a lot of these "common sense" statements aren't as clear when you're a provider / when there may be legal implications. I'm looking for some other voices outside of yours and I's echo chamber.

Did she dump you?

http://carterlawaz.com/2012/05/when-...of-you-online/ Seems reasonable to me.

I would just log into cPanel, pull your backups and move to a new host. You should leave any host with this level of incompetence in the dust.

That's mostly incorrect a large number of cameras within the UK are simply in a state of disrepair, a good portion have been removed and the others are lucky to even work. Policing numbers have dropped and in some areas you can go weeks without even seeing a single police officer. So I ain't exactly sure where this comes from as such. Hostgator is upholding an EU law it's hardly merit-less when this entire thing can be took to pieces in about 120 seconds flat infact their simply is no defence and no one is showing anything other than quoting afew useless "laws" that really would never be discussed. For things to end up in a court you already know a "law" has been broken and your seeking a solution through the law not spending critical time at the cost of thousands of pounds per hour arguing about what the law states and what you can and can't do. Their is simply no REAL reason why this person had his name leaked along side his photo on the internet without permission by all means take photos but clearly define a "law" that states you can publish said image along with ANY personal details. Everyone seems to ram on about "court" but no one seems to understand courtroom advocacy and what the system actually is.

Oh yea it was a circus over here. He did pass away shortly, but during his time in office, the world knew of us. It was bad publicity day after day, but he's been the only mayor to land on a late night talk show in front of millions. The footage of him and all those allegations...it was to the point that people were trying to sell videos and photos for millions. Or a copy of the "footage" was turned over to the police to verify it was real. A complete distraction circus from real issues...but if a website were to have such images or footage, guaranteed he would use is government power to have the account suspended.

Thanks and understood.

Perhaps start a new thread, since this is p4 of an older topic. At most, reference this in that.

at what level of "famous" do you have to be? They blurr faces because of commercial use. never went out with her. I was at an event taking pictures. I have shots of other people at the event. Other people were at the luncheon. This was not a date. It seems we are more focusded on she and I rather than does a person have a right to post a pic of someone who is in public.

In my view, it's the name that's the sticking point. You mention Facebook - on FB, I decide if anyone can tag me, and I can remove tags. Only by associating name to picture does it become personal IMO. I'd grey out the person, and remove the name.

I did most of my downloading last night. The moving of mail and forwarder email addresses is going to take awhile.

- The EU law does not support your position. It has very explicit exceptions, and you're (purposely?) ignoring those. - I have yet to read that Hostgator is the host in question. The OP has not confirmed. - The host is upholding squat. That's what you call "making things up as you go" (aka "pulling it out of your @ss"). It's not based on any law, and I've never seen such a ridiculous line in a ToS (and I've seen some real doozies!). This was a left-field oddball decision likely made by non-media IT employee that has zero education in the matter. If only this were true. But it's not. This would be tort (civil), not criminal. Again, you're simply ignoring the facts of this thread. Least of all, that EU laws do not apply here, as it appears to be a USA-owned and located host with a USA-owned and operated site. (And after Brexit, I have to wonder if UK will honor that EU law anyway.) Your name is not a personal detail. That's public record. __________ Do note, however, that intent is important. If, for example, the OP had photos on his site, with a caption that read "Mayor Smith dancing with prostitutes again", then it would likely fail the ToS test, as well as be defamation. This we do not know. I'd have to see it to know if it was kosher. Some of you are making some big leaps of faith and logic here. And several completely misunderstand the laws and ethics of reporting. Please educated yourself.

What actual ranking / career in the government does this employee hold exactly anyway, hopefully not the CIA or anything surely lol.

The fault definitely appears to be on the hosting provider here, they didn't go through the due process needed to deal with this kind of thing.

Just mute their faces and that's all.

Her protections would also extend to photos that paint her in a false light, expose private information about her, or cause her direct financial or emotional damage. Again, this would be a civil issue, and without proper context it's hard to say how far things could go legally.

I'll adjust .. It's the pathetic world YOU live in .... Dump the host as if they wont explain they are rubbish!

Plenty of case law already exists regarding this hence why providers are doing it.

Reviews are highly subjective so it is important to red the reviews instead of simply looking at the stars. I popped into Yelp and I too saw pages of one star reviews - but many of them are likely the customers fault. A few complain about WordPress/other scripts getting hacked - Most of the time, these are caused by the customer not updating their WordPress or plugins site with the latest release. WordPress exploits are rarely due to server exploits. More than one person was complaining that their account was set to auto-renew yearly and SiteGround actually had the nerve to auto-renew. One complaint is that it happened early in the morning ~1 AM on the renewal date instead of at night. There are of course some bad reviews that hold a bit more weight - you cannot please everyone - but I dont see too many red flags. For the record, I have never been with SiteGround so I cannot comment as to how their services are or recommend them personally.

Looking back at the first post, it's looks to be just a nobody. However, he never confirmed or denied. And we've never seen the image in question. @ jackClark : Did the person in the image ever contact you directly?

For the protection of human liberty? Contact details was omitted so it wouldn't of been a straight easy task anyway.

Word of mouth/forum referral is a double edge sword. I've seen people blindly refer to XXX host times and times again on this forum and others because they've "heard good things" about said host and/or they are in bed with them. If you can't afford people posting reviews of your service, then you need to get out of business. That's how social media marketing works. BBS/Forum boards is the older form of social media, we just don't see it because we've been using it for so long. What you are describing is a risk of doing business. You need to know when to cut the line.

Public, No admission. Anyone welcomed. Non religious. Non political. Lots of people. Lots of strangers. Most people didn't know anyone. Open community event. ?????????? I don't see any private information. Just a name. No address, no SSN, no birthdate. I see body language that represents the text Facebook is filled with this stuff

Your host is a bit harsh. There is no need to suspend your account unless you refuse to remove the photo or ignore the emails. I don't know how it works in the US, but I can tell you about Europe especially in the the context of the new GDPR regulations (effective May 2018). The data subject (the person on the photo) has the right to ask you to remove his photo and his name from your website. The photo and the name are Personally Identifiable Information (PII). You have to process them within the law and also with the continuous consent of the data subject. Even if you knew the person and that person agreed to have the photo published, still the person can later withdraw that consent. To comply with the request, you have the right to know who complained and you have the right to ask the complainant for reasonable elements to substantiate his claim. You have some venues to argue: - Your freedom of expression in case your goal is to inform about an event of a public interest - There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public dancing event as the one you describe (you didn't take the photo in private premises or private events) - The photo has been already made public by the data subject (similar photos at the same event shared publicly already)

Are you going to reference a few?

And if this photo took place in a public event on public land - I dont see the problem with it. When do these merits cross over the line of censorship and thought control? EU Laws a have blurred those lines on many occasions.

Yes uploading picutes of others is sensitive information, altough your host did wrong. They should have contacted you beforehand suspending your account. Also I dont get how one can directly reach to hosting company

The sad thing with laws...many of those laws that are still implemented today were made almost 200 years ago...when it made sense then.

I received a Cease and Desist Letter for the very posting or page that I was suspended for. When I had my hosting account shut down I just moved everything to a new host. The mother of the daughter in the pictures is claiming that I remove these pictures. can anyone tell me what is ilegal about this posting? http://loyalhost.net/kelsey.html daughter is in public and well over 18 possibly 25. received in todays mail Certified letter

Well i am going to settle down open a special bag of popcorn ive been saving. Its bacon flavored and exploding with extra buttery goodness. Good luck.

Seems a little over the top, The only reason a host should ever suspend your account or remove data due to a compliant is from a legal body. No one else have the authority to do anything about it. They should not of taken action just because some person that decided they didn't want their photo on the site made the request to them. I think the correct course of action would of been for the host to take this persons details and pass them onto the site owner (you) with the removal request. You won't find out unless the host chooses to tell you who it is. However as others have said it's a crazy world we live in now with all sorts of nonsense laws and regulations it's hard to know exactly where you stand on anything these days. My advice is dump them and move on, I just hope you have a backup.

Theirs been plenty of high profile cases of "misuse of private information" over the last few years but here's a little piece: https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/tm...e-information/

You might wish to study the Data Protection under EU law namely the "General Data Protection Regulation" which replaces directive 95/46/EC which was introduced in April 2016 ready to be fully in-line May 2018. You might also want to look at the sanctions within the directive and the scope of what "personally identifiable information" actually means within.

this person does TOURS.

This particular website only had a couple of pages, but it is what it is. Now if you really want to see something apisbull.com

What's the full context of the site? That's just a page with terrible photos and stupid captions.

We've only heard your side of the story. We don't know if these photos combined with these captions were weaponized against this girl in some way. The full context is missing. Facebook has a lot of photo/caption combinations that probably could be legally challenged (a lot of those joke memes about people at Walmart for example). Most of the time though the people that post those remove the content when asked to by the individuals in the photos.

Unacceptable. You should ask the host to examine the logic of suspending your account prior to allowing you, their client, appropriate time to examine this content, let alone make corrections to it if necessary. I would never consider this 'standard business practice'. It demonstrates an evident lack of knowledge and experience on the part of the provider to respond in such a manner, and shows they're evidentlylooking out for themselves more than for their clients. -- http://carterlawaz.com/2012/05/when-can-someone-post-photos-of-you-online/ Pictures of You in Public You have no expectation of privacy in anything you do in public. This includes where you go and what you do while you’re there. For example, I just got an adorable basset hound named Rosie. We take walks every day. I have no expectation of privacy regarding where we walk, what I’m wearing when I walk her, or how I react when she pulls on the leash. That’s all in plain view for everyone to see. Anyone can take a picture of us and post it online, preferably with a caption that says, “Sassy lady and her awesome dog,” and there’s nothing I can do about it (as long as they’re not misrepresenting me or commercializing my image without my consent). If you’re in a public place and someone snaps a picture of you while you’re falling down drunk, getting arrested, picking your nose, scowling at a crying baby, or not wearing pants, there’s probably nothing you can do if that picture shows up online somewhere. The exception to this rule is you have an expectation of privacy in places like public bathroom stalls, changing rooms, tanning salons, and doctor’s offices that may require you to be partially or completely undressed.

I'm not a lawyer however if I'm reading this article correctly there are two primary things that the person making the claim needs to show: This is was a public event. There is no expectation of privacy. Period. This also wouldn't apply in this case. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public event / setting. Although this whole reply is superfluous as the article you linked to is for the UK. What? @OP - This seems like a disingenuous complaint that the host received and they acted prematurely and abruptly. If we received a complaint like this I'm certain we'd pass along the request although not take any further action. If the claimant continued pursuing this we'd ask our council to verify the claim is legitimate. Based off your explanation what you're posting seems benign and totally fine. What a fun topic.

It's the fact one or more pieces of identifiable information have been released unknowingly and this person very likely is an EU citizen as well or because Hostgator is trading within the EU. You can't just look at the entire population and think okay it's a native resident because they could be from anywhere in the world. Another merit of argue in these cases is this person could of been subject to a witness protection program and now that has been dashed. It "might" look okay for you or other people but it could have serious implications for it's subject(s). The EU is giving till May 2018 to fully comply with it's new "GDPR" before it starts having out inforcement of anything upto 20 Million Euros I guess every hosting provider has spare change for several of those cases surely?

No. my domain is set to private with godaddy and there is no contact info on that particular site. That domain I use for email as yahoo and gmail like to snoope into your business. But sense these photos and captions have place, name and event I assume they typed in their name and city in to google and got me. Oh and by the way each photo I also was in. So I can't have my own pic on the internet.

Hiding your name/face is not liberty.

No other pages. I use the domain for email to ward off spam because Google doesn't do a good enough job. My domain is set to private with Godaddy. So how did they find me?

I find it hard to believe that "People Of Walmart" photos get contested or even removed when contested. How would you know?

I would just take the picture down or crop the person who complained out of the picture. The other side of the coin would be "There's this picture of me on the internet that was taken and posted without my permission. I've complained to the hosting company but they just ignore me. I'm worried that my employer/parents/children/new partner/creepy stalker/journalist will see it. What can I do? Help!". Yes they're an idiot for doing something in public they might later regret but it's very hard not to.

Not obviously going to quote US case law since I don't study within the US just an example of the high profile cases that have won based on publishing within the EU, etc

And I suspect many businesses will pull out of the failing EU before May of 2018.

Can I post the image here?

Most host do not allow you to post images of others, especially without asking. But, a question arises, how can the host know if you have done such. If you believe that you have not violated any laws, please inform your hosting company about the misunderstanding.

@ jackClark , why is it important to you that these pictures stay online? I'm not weighing in on whether or not you should be able to host these pictures if you choose to, just wondering why you didn't opt to remove these photos when asked. I have no sense of context as to why these seemingly innocuous photos would be a problem for someone, you'd need to provide more information before anyone here can make informed suggestions regarding the veracity of the legal threat here. What was the girls relationship with the old dude? Is a photo of the two of them together incriminating in some way (for one or both of them)?

It would depend on how they are posted. A photo alone in this context would probably be hard to challenge, but if the photo is combined with a caption designed to make the photo more humorous (thus, creating a likely false or exaggerated narrative) it's possible. I've looked at several online galleries like this over the years , I've seen several missing photos marked as "removed by request" or similar. That's what civil court is all about, she'd make her case and you'd make yours. Unlike photos for commercial use, these types of issues can be grey areas. It sounds like this girl and/or her family are very serious about pressing the issue, and you seem dead set on sticking your ground (for photos posted for html practic???????????). It just sounds like there is more to this story.

This "host" is some clueless amateur operation, and you should name/shame them. Move to a reputable company immediately. What you have now isn't it. As a journalist, let me tell you right now, that's 100% bull$hit. In the USA, we have the First Amendment. If you don't want your photo taken at a public event, then stay home. Only the EU has the cockamamey "right to be forgetton" laws. Apparently more often used as a "right to rewrite history". That is going to come back to bite you in the @ss eventually.

That's fair. Although the example you quoted is referring to something of the likes of paparazzi snapping photos of targeted individuals while they're doing things (IE: grocery shopping). How does this pertain to someone capturing photos at a public event / not targeting specific individuals? I think this is a tenuous argument. The easiest example I can think of is a local newspaper attending a local event (let's say a dance..) and snapping a group photo with the caption "John Doe and Jane Doe dancing the night away!". This doesn't fit your argument / the argument of your article.

I guess that's an entirely different debate but with some 750 Million residents that's alot of business you could very well be missing out on I do know the UK government have confirmed to carry forward the new GDPR directive once it "leaves" Am trying at best to hightlight the implications from a true stand point to prevent this happening to you all because frankly this is an absolute monster of a directive which covers everything from Video to IP Addresses.

AGAIN! People outside the US are just so boot lick'in. Why do you people cave in?

Can you point out some of these 'most hosts'? I haven't seen any providers say anything about this in the past before myself. It doesn't sound to me like the host cares. Honestly from the way it was handled - even if they did backpedal and apologize I'd still move out if I were the OP.

Do you do everything you are asked? I don't like your reply. I think you should remove it.

This is a fair question. Yes, creepy weird. False. Without any context, it does seem to tilt in that direction. Defamation can still be opinion, and vice versa. This is important. False. As mentioned, that extends to commercial use. You'll also see it on "news"-ish programs like "What Would You Do?" for defamation reasons (mostly to avoid the nuisance of litigation, not necessarily due to any malice wrongdoing). Those shows also skate the edge of editorial and commercial. Yes. No. Yes. Context: You're being weird about this.

Seriously. Most countries have laws for this based around expectations of privacy. Removing the name off of the page seems like a valid request though.

It's still a case of photographs within public and obviously the subject re: complaint hasn't granted permission for publishing of said personal photograph and name to be given out. If it's published within a newspaper or published on the internet it's still published to a "viewable audience" and on an international basis. It likely could of been a green light on certain factors if the name hadn't been published along side the photo.

So what you're saying is its not even in effect. None of your comments in this thread are germane to the topic, nor within the scope of its locale. We're talking about something happening right now, not in the future, and not in EU. Indeed, "user reviews" often reveal the limitations of the person's knowledge, rather than the item itself. Those reviews are left by people of unknown knowledge. You also need to watch for sites that are biased, only listing based on rewards ($$$). Then you have reviews written by journalists and professionals, who are skilled enough to look into actual metrics of what makes or breaks the company. When you find a person or organization like that, latch on and learn. For example, Consumer Reports is something I find valuable (and is what I used to help buy my last lawnmower; a John Deere). As is the case elsewhere in this thread, ethics are important there, too. Just to give an example of in-depth reviewing, one reason SiteGround is good (and actually got better post-Site5) is because the former CEO of Site5 helped many of his quality employees land jobs there. While things like "uptime" and "server speed" are important, its other elements that actually make the host function well. They have a good internal environment, unlike the dog-eat-dog BS you find at EIG.

They turned off ALL of my websites so I asked why I was still in violation. After waiting 28 1/2 hours for a response they said they lifted the restrictions to my site but would not lift the restrictions to my other sites.

They sent me an email syaing they lifted the restrictions to ALL of my sites now that I am now compliant but by either incompetence or stupidity they only lifted the one in question. So I asked if I am now in the clear, you claim that all of my sites are now compliant then why are my other sites still blocked? Their customer service was so good and so well maintained that it took 60 hours to respond. I have already moved on.

Your attitude is pretty bad. Since nobody is actually saying what they really think, I'll lay it out in honesty. The captions appear to be trying to lead like the young female is interested in the old man. That's a tad weird. Not surprised they want the content removed. If the female isn't your family then you have zero right to post pictures of her online, especially without her consent.

@ kpmedia , you're kind of hard-lining your perspective from the angle of copyright protections and such. There are thousands (and I do mean thousands) of cases that give precedence to the idea that an individuals right to privacy can extend into public areas. Also, in a case where the person in the photo could be arguing that they are damaged by the photo, accusations of stalking, harassment, or defamation will generally come into play. In Florida, for example, there are statutes on the books that essentially define "Slut Shaming" as criminal harassment (though a few prerequisites must be met, of course).

Probably my biggest pet peeve of all time is the piss-poor understanding that people (including laws officers!) have of photographic rights. It's gotten to be downright vulgar in recent years, with cops literally attacking photographers, Trumpist idiots attacking the press, and the general public doing stupid $hit in public then crying to ISPs/hosts/Facebook/etc to "remove it" when they have zero legal recourse for it to happen. Here are the actual rules: 1. Don't do stupid stuff in public. 2. If you can't help yourself from doing stupid stuff, stay home. Seriously. It's just that easy. One of the reasons I left that field some years ago was because "don't quote me" and "don't publish that" (always DEMANDS, not requests) was getting old. And no, hell no, I didn't obey any of that nonsense. If I asked you a question, and you gave me an unfiltered response, I might quote it. We'd have to have one heck of an establish rapport for me to give you that extreme courtesy. NOT doing these things is a breech of journalistic ethics! Only once did my editors ever whitewash over a quote (related to 9/11, which I still despise to this day). Only obscenity and nudity was left out. People should be required to take journalism courses in high school, so they understand what's happening, and how the world really works. Private photos are another matter entirely. If a shot was taken non-public, then absolutely remove it. With few exceptions, of course, again for First Amendment reasons. A great example of a stupid move was Gawker publishing the Hogan sex tape. That was vulgar, unethical, illegal, and they were sued because of it.

Generally if a photo is taken of an individual (which they're identifiable) in a public setting (especially a very public event) it's fine to publish. Adding the name is where I'm not sure and would need to defer to someone who has more experience in that field. My initial understanding is it's legal albeit may draw some ire from the individual(s). I suppose this is why there are lawyers to attend to things of this nature, eh? Regardless I find this debate / topic interesting. Perhaps someone who isn't an armchair lawyer could chime in.

If you actually took the time to read all the directives I mentioned you'd fully understand every point I have made, the fact you simply cannot see beyond the tunnel vision of the US means very little here, international business is subject to international laws. The existing directive is equally as harsh but the newer directive which was adopted on 27 April 2016 ready to be implemented and enforcable by May 2018 and this period is simply a transistion period for business to seek legal advice and implement the directive as it's a major change to EU Law which took some 4 years worth of debating you don't implement such drastic changes across multi-countries over night. It's simple if your business, company, or whatever isn't fully complying with the GDPR prior to it's implementation date you could very well end up with a sanction from the EU. Obviously regardless of whatever I say based on pure experience of training towards a job that takes many years to do, your simply going to dissaprove based on XYZ. "Personal Identifiable Information" is the following "any data which can potentially identify a specific individual" You seem to think am misunderstood of specific pieces of directive, laws, case law so I take the opportunity for you to explain within the relms of the law why this is completely legal within the EU and as to why Hostgator should not uphold this.

Now since this person does tours, I have seen youtube videos of them and have noticed that some of these videos are posted by friends or family. Well those videos have been deleted or set to private. This person writes articles along with their pic. Now they don't want to be out there? The reason why these videos are unaccessable is that they probably convinced their friend or family member to do so. However the other videos posted by others probably said no. I would have to say that this person who is in tours really has an issue of having their face out there not to mention possible some psychological issues. Maybe you should get out of the public eye.

Glad to hear. I'd recommend posting a review about your experiences with them that shows the name, but that's up to you.

In England there is no freedom of speech.

There is no legal 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in public -- so there's no problems with taking photos. This concept hasn't quite reached the USA yet - but in the EU people have a 'right to be forgotten'. This doesn't apply to you yet, but I think the polite thing to do would be to remove the complainant's pictures and name from your site. tl;dr I don't think your host should have suspended your site without giving you a chance to remove the complainant's pictures and name.

That is far from true - especially if the website is US based (as the OP stated). There are a few points that need to be addressed here - Does the OP have the right to see who complained? - YES! In fact the customer should be entitled to get a full copy of the complaint. This is important for things like counter notices/etc. Does the complainer have an expectancy of privacy? - In this case, no. These were photos taken in a public event and in public land were there cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy. As long as there were no cameras setup in places where there should have been an expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, etc - there was no foul play. Names do not fall under "sensitive personal information" in the united states. Just because a user does not like something, does not mean they can demand it being taken down in the United States (of course EU Laws seem to be backwards in this regard). @OP - I would advise you to immediately change hosts. Your host clearly does not understand how things work.

Generally at events especially within the UK your asked to be photographed and for it to be published and this also happens selectively across the EU namely because of all this case law which is being brought about by celebrities and it's spreading fast across the world. But having spent many hours studying law and personally watching many court cases and having done jury service and currently working towards becoming a barrister in cyber what would I know.

This is the only thing you've said that I can agree with: I think you're confused, and have things completely wrong. Hostgator/EIG isn't EU. They stay out of that market completely. EIG does NA and Asia. In fact, Hostgator/EIG wasn't confirmed as the host. Why do you keep mentioning them? (If corporations are people, see Citizens United ruling, and names are not allowed, you just broke the law. We can't talk about Hostgator. Oops, now I did it too. See how stupid that is?)

Every hosting provider should or at least should have some type of handling for "legal" or "B.S" claims for stuff like DMCA or generic removal requests for whatever. Sometimes with the sheer high price for legal advice this can go missed leading to many confused providers, customers and general uproar sometimes leading to a court order aspecially with the smaller providers who simply cannot fund the some £300 + VAT per hour rates. Is that being a tour guide or is that something else in the US? This could of been resolved on a local level previous to the provider getting involded, part of the complaint might of been lack of details for a removal request. I would advise just creating a generic "dmca@" or "legal@" type email off your domain name and also create a page on your site detailing how you handle such requests, etc, it will drastically improve your chances of fighting a false take-down in the future and be fully aware before the provider gets involded. Mostly because these laws carry heavy fines and can even stop you trading as a business. It could be anything for a sudden change like this to happen it could be a victim of a troll, a victim of online abuse, now be part of a witness protection program, you really don't know but the fact Hostgator will not forward the request seems it could be something serious that simply cannot be disclosed because certainly generic abuse reports are generally forwarded anyway within reason.

Tell me where

To me, without any other context, that page looks more like defamation and not an expression of one's opinion. People often mistake "freedom of speech" with "I can do whatever the hell I want, without any consequences"... which is just a wrong asumption to make.

There's always jury outliers, and those get the headline -- but pay attention to the appeals. This thread, from a purely copyright stance, as far as I can see = no. Pound sand. But the stuff here is weird, and harassment/defamation/etc very likely could come into play. My advice = just take it down, quick being a jerk. The thread has become pointless, seeing as how the content was creepy nonsense. No societal value.

The legal aspect of this has been pretty much covered here. I would concur that this provider needs to left in your rear view mirror. Time to migrate elsewhere.

You're absolutely right - most publications will look for express permission to avoid litigation I'd imagine. Does that mean it's explicitly legal or illegal? I'm not so sure. Although since.. you've spent many hours studying law and watching many court cases I'd imagine you're well aware of how nuanced argument this is. It's quite disingenuous of you to put out a blanket statements such as: while disregarding the contents of the article that you've posted as they're not terribly applicable to this instance (in my opinion - I've pointed out why in my previous posts) and others that are easily attainable by using everyone's favorite armchair lawyer - Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person...#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy Unfortunately I'm going to reference a LifeHacker article (ugh) although it seems to put into layman's term the argument I'm trying to make - primarily in regard to publishing photos taken in public: https://lifehacker.com/5912250/know-...aphy-in-public So what have we learned? State your argument and explain why before attempting to throw accolades out. An appeal to authority is simply put - lame. Also hire a damned lawyer if you're uncertain.

The only thing that legally could cause any issue is having the person's name there. As far as the picture and US laws. That picture was taken by you at a public event. You are 100% copyright owner of that picture and are free to do what you want with that picture as long as you do not edit in a way that could cause a determination of character charge to be filed. I know you said it wasnt, but for example if the picture was of a drunken guy, we will call Bob, laying in his on excrement on the sidewalk, you could post that picture all day long without any having to remove it in any way. If Bob was arrested for Public Intoxication, then you could post that picture with his name as long as it was in reference to his arrest. i.e. Bob was arrest for Public Intoxication last night, this picutre was taken right before he want to jail. But if you took the same picture, photoshopped a bunch of beer bottles around him and said "Bob is such a drunk, he does this everytime". Now Bob has a potential case against you, while its true if you can go to court and provide enough evidence to show that Bob really is a drunk and does pass out in public at several major events, then you will the law suit. As far as the EU laws, as long as your hosting company does not have an active presence in the EU and you are not located in the EU, then they have no effect on you what so ever. Now if they are in the EU, then they do have to obey the EU regulations. I have done photography for years and even did it to make extra money for awhile. I have had more threats of law suits against me over photos I have posted from public events then I even care to think about. The funny thing is I tell them to go right ahead and of the 1000s that said they were going to sue me, only 1 found a lawyer to even take the case and once my lawyer sent the rebuttal to cease and desist, we never heard another thing from that person.

WOW! You just keep making up excuses.

Here would work and tack it on at the end, or just start a new topic in http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1 with, "Review of <Host Name>" or something similar, as a title and write out what was handled poorly and why you are gone. Then report your own post with the domain you had there for the mods to verify the review.

Oh my, those photos and captions on a blank website, plus the question you posted earlier ''How did they find me?'' is creepy.

I honestly wonder who the provider is

Your focusing to much on the "law" whiles mostly I am focusing on the merits if this was an actual case which a barrister was to argue in a case, in this system we look for the merits to get a solution through the law rather than directly apply the law hence why case law is so beautiful. It was merely an example of a recent piece of case law I really haven't the time to fish out 100's of pieces in an attempt to prove nothing to an audience who has mostly never studied law but in the end the judge makes the decision based on the merits presented by the barrister(s) Feel free to argue this but from my experience of this and within the UK it would be swinging towards being removed with damages included, expressively one doesn't have to argue permission basis either. This notion of "we can publish whatever we want when, when we want, about who we want" largely doesn't exist and the quicker people see that the less red-tape will be applied to us.

Yes, nobody else can copy it (with exemptions such as "fair use" doctrine). That's all that means. Nope. Not commercial use. Not without a release. Yep. Arrest isn't needed. You could simply label the photo "Bob" with no further comments. The image tells the story. Yep, libel. Maybe. That example is stretching. And while EU's "right to be forgotten" laws are ridiculous, it's not as bad as what's being portrayed in this thread by some posters. Links to authoritative info has been posted, as well as some quoting exceptions to the rule. And this threads is an exception. The one I always liked is "Don't take my picture!" to which I would usually respond "Get out of my photo!"

You said Hostgator. I didn't.

Link to the new thread here if you make one .

Do I blindly take orders from others? No. If someone asked me to take down pictures I had taken of them at a party, would I? Sure, as a common courtesy. I'm starting to think perhaps you're Steve LOL.

I will reply with TWO emails the host sent me then I will make my comments below each one. Sorry I missed your question the first time. Hopefully this sheds some light on the subject and answers your question. If it does not, or if you have any other question please let us know. ================================================================== Hoxxxxxator does not allow its customers to utilize its services to display Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) (as defined below) without permission from the individual or, if the PII relates to a minor, without permission from the minor’s legal guardian. “Personally Identifiable Information” is information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity and is not otherwise publicly available. Such information may include: an individual name along with his/her photograph; an individual's name along with his/her telephone number, home address, and/or email address; or an individual's name with his/her social security number, date of birth, place of birth, or biometric records. ================================================================== Best Regards, They said they do not allow. They did not say it was against the law. They also said distinguish or trace an individual’s identity and is not otherwise publicly available. Let me tell you this, this person is all over the internet as they are a government employee and a WRITER (who writes article) online WITH THEIR PICTURE AND who was an employee of this so called event at which this was sponsored by. No $hit. And how does one become publicly available in the first place? This is the chicken or the egg question. They also said phone number address. There are thousands of websites you can go to, to seach someons birthday and get a phone number and address. Some free some pay. Here is the second email. In a seperately created ticket regarding this same issue you'd asked: "I would like to know who filed the complaint and exactly what their complaint was and did they provide any evidence they were the party involved. I'll be addressing each part of this inquiry individually... 1. "who filed the complaint" - This information is kept private to protect the flow of information in regards to violations of our Terms of Service. 2. "exactly what their complaint was" - Posting of a person's photograph without permission. Normally this would fall under a DMCA complaint but would have required additional information from the complainant and in the best interest of maintaining information security in a safe hosting environment we moved forward with this complaint as PII due to the content being in clear violation of our Terms of Service. 3. "did they provide any evidence they were the party involved" - This is not required as PII is against our Terms of Service. Best Regards, They said Posting of a person's photograph without permission. That was the whole sentence. in that sentence they did not say NAME. Seems I would look for a host who host porn sites because I'm sure they know the laws. But did you notice it could be a DMCA violation but we don't want to spend time investigating details to be sure? 3. "did they provide any evidence they were the party involved" - This is not required as PII is against our Terms of Service. Any person can say anything and pretend to be anyone and you are totally screwed.

Except what happens in the "European Convention on Human Rights" really has no bearing here as this is a US site, US Host and took place in the United States. The European Rules really seem to overstep into the realm of censorship with rules that show that they have no understanding on how the internet works.

You are correct with the commercial use, but I will say this as it was mentioned this was a city sponsored event. Many cities have in their city parks and places rules and regulations, it is ok to photograph in those areas and anyone entering those areas give full release of any photograph by enjoying that area. I know that is true in my area, because I have sold plenty of pictures to the local media and businesses and some of the threats have come about because of those photos. But like I said as soon they talk to an attorney, they realize they have no case and go away.

I posted the host's email where they said they didn't go through the digging of if they were really the ones who were in the photo they just said it was a violation of their terms. So based on them not wanting to spend that much time and since I'm just a small fry customer it's probaly not a million dollar lawsuit like you want to pretend it to be.

I had a discussion with my host over a chat line and requested to cancel my account. I received an email stating the cancelation. They charged my credit card anyway. They said I canceled my account 2 days before the billing. HA! I canceled on Sept first but the email they sent in July stated my renewal date was Sept 13th. Therefore I cancled 2 weeks a head. So when I called to reverse the charges on my credit card they said it would take about week. Ok, I can live with that. At least they were willing to do that.

Steve? No. Pictures I took? Yes. In public? Yes. If I am Steve how did I take these photos?

Sounds like some top EIG policies. Definitely move to another host.

The thing with it happening and happening at a large scale all over the world people are looking at other justice systems for examples of case law and arguing them based on merit and not the law. What the law is doesn't get argued okay when points of the law need to be argued it gets done but mostly your looking and arguing merited points. For instance many people you see in public you simply do not know, you don't know who they are or what jobs they hold within society. You could very well photograph a secret CIA officer, release his name and end his career overnight and most likely would have to deal with the end result of doing so. Starting to see the merits?

Ah, touche. That is indeed correct, though I've rarely seen it. I think it mostly applies to larger cities. Same goes for private venues; it's in the fine print on the ticket. (Private venues usually forbid you, but allows it for themselves.)

Sorry, after seeing Hoxxxxxator I had to look twice I could of sworn I saw Hostgator but after many years of seeing Hostgator splashed all over I guess you can say am accustomed to it. The host is willing to uphold it so it something worth while at least but it couldn't of been resolved on a local level due to lack of contact details so the ball would of always been held with the provider mostly and providers can get screwed for this.

I want to make this clear. I have had my web sites on many hosting companies and resellers over the past 18-20 years. I have even had dedicated servers. Of all of them I will never go back to Hostgator. Not saying they were my last hosting company that I have delt with but I am saying I would never go back to them.

Do you want to be Steve?