jayeff

Predicated on this legislation surviving any challenges, a more reasonable question might be how long your business will survive if you close it to anyone you do not already know? That's not intended as an aggressive or derogatory comment, just a recognition of the reality that in the normal course of events, your customer base 5 years from now would include many names that today you have never heard of. I suppose it is marginally more likely that a would-be stalker might sign up as an affiliate to save himself the cost of even one of your bargain basement sets, but unless you close your doors to all new business (and perhaps not even then) you cannot avoid giving away formerly private information to people who one way or another might abuse it.

As an aside, those who say that details such as addresses need not be included, have not read the regulations very carefully. The section I have pasted in below includes the DOJ's comments on the broad privacy issues and on the possible conflict with privacy laws abroad. They clearly do expect all the information about a person to be included, since they specifically rejected the concept of "sanitizing" records and the fears associated with the inclusion of such details. Neither of these issues would arise if only the performer's name and date of birth were required.


"While the Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited outweighs these concerns. Furthermore, specifically regarding personal information about performers required to be provided to primary producers, the Department notes that the information required is no different from that required by other forms of employee or business records, such as social security numbers and dates of birth required for tax reporting purposes, emergency contact numbers in case of health problems, or addresses used to transmit paychecks. Regarding information about producers, such as their physical location, that those producers must include in their statements, the Department notes that producers are already required, under the current Part 75 regulations, to include that information. Finally, regarding personal
information about performers that must be transmitted to secondary producers, the Department again notes, first, that such information is
already required by the current Part 75 regulations, and, second, that
none of the commenters presented any evidence that a hypothetically
possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer, was in any way tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer provided to a producer in compliance with Part 75.

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.

One commenter also commented that the proposed rule may force foreign primary producers to violate foreign laws regarding protection of information. If primary producers in foreign countries decide to comply with their home privacy laws and not provide materials to U.S. entities, the regulation will chill the availability of materials and speech to U.S. citizens. The Department declines to adopt this comment.

The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items that are imported into the United States. In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited."