Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chase
No the DOJ specifically declined "sanitized" copies.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm
[[Page 29615]] (it's about half-way down the page says:
"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." |
that is still a comment and not the actual law.
it says:
"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"
"believing" is not knowing and it is still not a law.
the law says:
"that bears the photograph and the name of the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information that it can be accessed from the issuing authority,"
this can be for example the number of the passport which would be sufficient for the authorities to identify a person - but not necessarily the home address of the performer