Protecting the Identity of Performers

[EroticySteve]

Soon we'll be able to look at and smile about the arbitrarity (is that a word?) of the new 2257 regulations about to go into effect.

In the meantime there are many concerns regarding the issue. Many concerns without answers or even a qualified government official to interpret these laws for us into plain English.

One topic that I see a lot of hubub about is the safety of performers. In many areas of life it is okay to hide behind a pseudonym and a relative level of aonymity. Imagine if Hollywood actors had to put their personal information out there for everyone to see? Chaos and safety issues would quickly ensue.

Has anyone thought about an organization kind of the the Screen Actors Guild for Adult Performers, if there isn't already one? All performers would have to register with this organization who would be responsible for verifiying and validating the background and identity of each performer. Make producers require that all of their talent be registered with this organization. Each performer could then be assigned an ID # that corresponds to their records. This would make the content providers, the performers and primary and secondary producers' task of maintaining databases of information much simpler.

This way if someone with a need to find the relevant information on a performer i.e. The Feds, they could easily cross reference the performer's ID with a national database of performers where the performer's personal information would be kept on a need to know basis only?

Does this make sense?

[sarettah]

That would make sense and would simplify things, but it ignores the biggest fact.

The Feds don't want it to be simple, they don't want it to be easy for us.

They want it to be easy for them to prosecute in the name of "protecting the children".

If that were not so then the rules would read more like the rules for selling cigearettes.. Something along the line of "records are required accept where it is obvious that the performer is not a minor" (like cigarettes do in missouri..."you need to check id on anyone under 27 years old")

They have turned what is a good concept... "Prove that the performer is of age" into a blatant attempt to get prosecutions from people being unable to fathom the paperwork maze.

just imho of course.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by sarettah@Jun 14 2005, 03:00 PM
That would make sense and would simplify things, but it ignores the biggest fact.

The Feds don't want it to be simple, they don't want it to be easy for us.

They want it to be easy for them to prosecute in the name of "protecting the children".

If that were not so then the rules would read more like the rules for selling cigearettes.. Something along the line of "records are required accept where it is obvious that the performer is not a minor" (like cigarettes do in missouri..."you need to check id on anyone under 27 years old")

They have turned what is a good concept... "Prove that the performer is of age" into a blatant attempt to get prosecutions from people being unable to fathom the paperwork maze.

just imho of course.

For once you have a sane thought in your head!! :P

[sarettah]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 14 2005, 03:02 PM
For once you have a sane thought in your head!! :P

Fuck...I hate when that happens

[SykkBoy]

They want it to be easy for them to inspect records and difficult for us to maintain those records...

[EroticySteve]

What is going to happen is that there are performers who will be unfortunate martyrs of this legislation. I truly hope that this does not happen, but a direct effect of these record keeping rules are that performers will be stalked, harrassed and even killed. This is no laughing matter and it's a direct effect of putting sensitive information out there.

It's meant to cripple the industry and turn away performers who may not be strong of heart and spirit.

Once a few girls get killed or attacked the lawmakers may realize the error of their ways and revise their rules to be more logical and to protect peformers better.

I truly hope that this is all just over speculation but I see nothing good about putting the name of an actor or actress in places that it doesn't need to be.

[JoesHO]

I think expecting the girls to get killed will be a little stretch, I mean come on now, the show AVN puts on is packed with tens of thousands of stalking fans and nothing ever happens to them there.

and lets be frank here, most girls just answear an ad to come to a shoot anyway right?

so do you honestly believe they have not answeared others? so if a guy wanted to be a creep he can get as many girls as he wants to answear his ads and do his own shoots ( I mean honestly many people in the biz quote unquote use these same tactics to get laid themselves do they not?)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by EroticySteve@Jun 14 2005, 02:54 PM
One topic that I see a lot of hubub about is the safety of performers. In many areas of life it is okay to hide behind a pseudonym and a relative level of aonymity. Imagine if Hollywood actors had to put their personal information out there for everyone to see? Chaos and safety issues would quickly ensue.

I actually think this a way overblown concern for the most part.

The rules (2257) state that the producer has to attain through looking at an id that a performer is of age and has to store a copy of the id. It states that the id has to have the name and birthdate, it does NOT state that the id has to have an address. So, primary producers can sanitize their docs before sending them to secondary producers and nowhere in the rules does it say they can't.

The only stuff that was published regarding this was that the feds were not going to require primary producers to sanitize the docs, it never stated that they can't.

from the federal register:

"Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers."

Since the rules do NOT require the address and the primary producer is NOT forbidden to sanitize the docs then the primary producer, if they are so inclined, could very easily protect the address of their performers. Imho of course (and I am NOT a lawyer)

[EroticySteve]

My understanding is that an ID or the copy of an ID can't be altered as to prove it illegible in it's entirety. I could be wrong here but that's the impression that I get.

Yes, the example may be a bit extreme. Be that as it may, it is still a measure of good business and government not to expose the identities of people who wish to keep them private for whatever reason. If there was no mainstream stigma few would worry about masking their true identity and location. People would be moonlighting in the business on the side for extra cash if there was no fear of retaliation or agression by crazies.

Extreme as it may be, it's not illogical.

It's not overblown in my opinion, I think this is just one of many concerns that was not properly addressed at the first level of public opposition.