Sanitized 2257 Docs. - GoFuckYourself.com

AaronM · 05-26-2005, 09:45 AM

Allow me to start by saying that I have yet to discuss this issue with an attorney, I'm simply reading these new regulations and trying to find ways to work within them.

"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."

Now, the way this reads to me is that the DOJ has decided not to "require" us to sanitize the docs. BUT...Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that we can't do so voluntarily.

Your thoughts?

Mutt · 05-26-2005, 09:50 AM

Aaron i posted about this a couple times - I don't see ANYWHERE in this law that prohibits a primary or secondary producer from sanatizing the ID's as long as the picture and legal name are there.

StuartD · 05-26-2005, 09:52 AM

"plan would be overly burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the record-keeping process."

Like it's not already!!

Anyway, I agree... it doesn't say anywhere that you can't do it, just that it's not required since it's too much of a pain to do.

Lycanthrope · 05-26-2005, 09:54 AM

That is definately one way that it could be interpreted. It would at least give the lawyers ammo if shit did hit the fan, however, aren't the comments simply like 'discovery', and since these comments aren't in the reg itself, moot w/ regards to actual compliance?

CDSmith · 05-26-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Now, the way this reads to me is that the DOJ has decided not to "require" us to sanitize the docs. BUT...Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that we can't do so voluntarily.

Your thoughts?

Agreed.

Break out the mister clean. :D

MarkTiarra · 05-26-2005, 09:55 AM

The interpretation I got concurs that you can "sanitize" them voluntarily. They are trying to discourage it some say because part of the "evil plot" is to make it so no chick would want to do porn cuz her name would be on it. But to actually make it a law to force them to show their true identity... that just would not have passed so instead they take this passive approach. I'm 99.99% certain you can sanitize them yourselves with no problem.

tony286 · 05-26-2005, 09:55 AM

you have a point the way it reads , it will be interesting to see what jd's thoughts are when you run it by him.I wish they would write this shit so it was very black and white instead of murky grey.

After Shock Media · 05-26-2005, 09:58 AM

Had the same question myself aaron, I did however notice and would pay attention to the noterized affidavit part of it.

StuartD · 05-26-2005, 09:59 AM

My concern with this would be.... if they don't say you can't sanitize.. and drop it at that.. then the question remains, what level of sanitization can be done?
How much info can be censored and how much can't? Do you just have to take a shot in the dark and hope that home address, phone number and what ever is enough?

ronaldo · 05-26-2005, 09:59 AM

That's one I noticed earlier and exactly how I read it Aaron.

How they could prosecute someone simply for doing the work that they consider burdensome is beyond me.

It's VERY nice of them to think of the workload on primary producers, but if they so choose to do it, I can't imagine a problem.

The ONLY reason they give to NOT include it, is BECAUSE it's burdensome. To take it upon yourself to do it shouldn't be a factor. There is NOTHING that states the secondary producer must produce unsanitized records (that I'm aware of).

AaronM · 05-26-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

That is definately one way that it could be interpreted. It would at least give the lawyers ammo if shit did hit the fan, however, aren't the comments simply like 'discovery', and since these comments aren't in the reg itself, moot w/ regards to actual compliance?

You're right about it being in the comments area...But I don't see anywhere in the regs themselves where it says we can't do it either.

AaronM · 05-26-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

You're right about it being in the comments area...But I don't see anywhere in the regs themselves where it says we can't do it either.

Either way....I'm not going to base my decision on my thoughts....It will be based on the thoughts of attorneys.

I'm just throwing this out for discussion.

Mutt, With all the 2257 threads, I must have miseed where you mentioned it.

Tango · 05-26-2005, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkTiarra

The interpretation I got concurs that you can "sanitize" them voluntarily. They are trying to discourage it some say because part of the "evil plot" is to make it so no chick would want to do porn cuz her name would be on it. But to actually make it a law to force them to show their true identity... that just would not have passed so instead they take this passive approach. I'm 99.99% certain you can sanitize them yourselves with no problem.

I concur

BradShaw · 05-26-2005, 10:05 AM

I think Aaron is smarter than his lawyer. Either he is VERY smart, or his lawyer is not.

Nader · 05-26-2005, 10:09 AM

I really thing there will be more posted re: what we need. There are so many
different opinions floating around. Your attorney should tell it the best.

Mutt · 05-26-2005, 10:10 AM

the amount of sanitization that logically would be allowed is everything that is not required to comply with THEIR law - so you couldn't black out 'State of Washington' - then they have no idea what card they're looking at. Any info not EXPLICITLY required can be sanitized - address for sure. If you are looking out for the models best thing is ask them for a national ID card rather than state - harder to search through 50 states rather than one.

slapass · 05-26-2005, 10:10 AM

I read this the same way. They clearly view it as a viable option but burdensome one. Having said that, I see no where that it provides cover for you if you provided sanitized 2257 info.

AaronM · 05-26-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

Had the same question myself aaron, I did however notice and would pay attention to the noterized affidavit part of it.

I'm wondering about that as well. The comments say that IF they required sanitized records that they would then also require the notary stuff. Since they chose not to do this...How can they enforce the notary part?

Let's say that they consider this "computer manipulation" of the docs. Well, according to their own regulations, a secondary producer is:

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Now, simply scanning and resizing the docs to give to secondary producers and or clients is also manipulating the docs.....But they are not requiring us to have that notarized.

JFK · 05-26-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NichePay_Nader

I really thing there will be more posted re: what we need. There are so many
different opinions floating around. Your attorney should tell it the best.

I agree there are so many discussions, opinions floating around that it just raises more questions than it provides answers. Proper legal advice is the best thing to do, and even then it wont be clarified till some legal Challenge in a court of law.

jayeff · 05-26-2005, 10:18 AM

One of the reasons the DOJ gave for declining to adopt the suggestion of allowing sanitization, was the burden they perceived it placing on some webmasters. According to the preliminary legal opinion I got yesterday, the key issues in this section are that they did decline that option and that by extension, the information some had proposed "sanitizing" must therefore be included in plain.

I'm sure anyone who has spoken to a lawyer will have been told that in matters like this, even expert opinions will vary. The opinion you decide to adopt is likely to reflect the degree of risk you are willing to take and this is a good example.

It is clear that the DOJ wants to see all the details that would allow them to identify fully the models involved. Apart from what they have actually written, how could they check the validity of the information a site operator provides, with nothing more than a photocopied ID showing a name and birthdate? So you make a choice either to give them what they want, or to take advantage of what you or your counsel perceives as a loophole, and hope you can successfully argue that defense if the need arises.

After Shock Media · 05-26-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I'm wondering about that as well. The comments say that IF they required sanitized records that they would then also require the notary stuff. Since they chose not to do this...How can they enforce the notary part?

Let's say that they consider this "computer manipulation" of the docs. Well, according to their own regulations, a secondary producer is:

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Now, simply scanning and resizing the docs to give to secondary producers and or clients is also manipulating the docs.....But they are not requiring us to have that notarized.

I doubt they could enforce it, though it would go a good way showing any judge you were doing your best to balance compliance with models privacy and saftey.

AaronM · 05-26-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

how could they check the validity of the information a site operator provides, with nothing more than a photocopied ID showing a name and birthdate?

You don't think this can be done?

Give me your name and date of birth and I can come up with your SSN, Address, your families addresses, every address you have had in the last 10 or so years, the other people living in your house, the value of your house......All sorts of great shit.

And I don't have the unlimited resources that the Government has.

If you think I'm full of shit....Post your name and DOB and give me permission to post what I find.

The fact that I can do this is exactly why these laws are dangerous in the first place.

NaughtyRob · 05-26-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of the fungi

I doubt they could enforce it, though it would go a good way showing any judge you were doing your best to balance compliance with models privacy and saftey.

Exactly.

media · 05-26-2005, 10:32 AM

Though it says that it would be burdensome for providers to have to sanatize the docs I would also look at it from the angle that they might basicly be saying NO do not sanatize the docs, but not specificly specifying either way 100%

Like JD said in an xbiz article, they require one form of ID, if you provide more than one ID, even to be thourough, you are violating 2257 requirements because it says you must provide one form of ID..

"Additionally, Obenberger added that one of the provisions state that nothing can be added to 2257 records. For example, if an extra piece of ID is obtained by a producer, it is a violation of 2257 law and can result in a maximum of five years in prison.

"If you exceed the requirements then it is a federal crime," Obenberger said."

It's very confusing to say the least.. Their wording in this is very "open" but still very limited...

I'd like more expert opinion from our lawyers on this before we decide one way or another.. because as we all know, the government likes to do shady shit that can hem you up later..

jayeff · 05-26-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

You don't think this can be done?

Having chased debtors, I know perfectly well it often can be done. But I'm not sure I would want to the job of trying to do it for a model out of the Ukraine for example. Similarly the DOJ have justified their choice of policy in several places as allowing them to work as easily as possible.

In any case the question is pointless in this context, because the sole relevant issue is whether to take the safe route and go along with the spirit of the regulations, or whether to gamble that you could successfully attack the way that they are written. I totally agree that in this and several other areas they have not dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". The real question should be "How lucky do you feel?" or maybe "How deep are your pockets?".

Juicy D. Links · 05-26-2005, 10:39 AM

Good Post Aaron

ronaldo · 05-26-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by media

It's very confusing to say the least.. Their wording in this is very "open" but still very limited...

Typical legalese, media. Typical legalese.

DateDoc · 05-26-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Apart from what they have actually written, how could they check the validity of the information a site operator provides, with nothing more than a photocopied ID showing a name and birthdate?

Leave the ID # on it then you have name, birthdate and an ID number that is easily verifiable.

AaronM · 05-26-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

Having chased debtors, I know perfectly well it often can be done. But I'm not sure I would want to the job of trying to do it for a model out of the Ukraine for example. Similarly the DOJ have justified their choice of policy in several places as allowing them to work as easily as possible.

In any case the question is pointless in this context, because the sole relevant issue is whether to take the safe route and go along with the spirit of the regulations, or whether to gamble that you could successfully attack the way that they are written. I totally agree that in this and several other areas they have not dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". The real question should be "How lucky do you feel?" or maybe "How deep are your pockets?".

All very good points.

Joesho · 05-26-2005, 10:52 AM

I agree it is pretty easy if you know the state of origin, and the legal name to obtain the id # anyway, as many states have this information covered in their freedom of information acts. or state government info disclosure statutes.

I would think that blocking the adress is OK as it goes directly to privacy, but leave the state issued vefifiable number Name, and DOB .

That is my 2 cents

Adam-EB · 05-26-2005, 10:55 AM

I posted the same question a few days ago. I am wondering the same thing.

mahoney · 05-26-2005, 11:13 AM

Good Question, only time will tell. Hopefully this will be clarified in the near future.

latinasojourn · 05-26-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

One of the reasons the DOJ gave for declining to adopt the suggestion of allowing sanitization, was the burden they perceived it placing on some webmasters. According to the preliminary legal opinion I got yesterday, the key issues in this section are that they did decline that option and that by extension, the information some had proposed "sanitizing" must therefore be included in plain.

I'm sure anyone who has spoken to a lawyer will have been told that in matters like this, even expert opinions will vary. The opinion you decide to adopt is likely to reflect the degree of risk you are willing to take and this is a good example.

It is clear that the DOJ wants to see all the details that would allow them to identify fully the models involved. Apart from what they have actually written, how could they check the validity of the information a site operator provides, with nothing more than a photocopied ID showing a name and birthdate? So you make a choice either to give them what they want, or to take advantage of what you or your counsel perceives as a loophole, and hope you can successfully argue that defense if the need arises.

at this stage of the game i would not buy from primary producers who sanittized their docs.

and i doubt many secondary producers would.

DWB · 05-26-2005, 11:54 AM

Problem solved. I just poured bleach over all my documents. They are now sanitized.

baddog · 05-26-2005, 12:18 PM

I will preface this comment by stating I am not an attorney, and by law am not allowed to dispense legal advise. No attorney-client relationship is established or implied. All opinions are based upon my own personal knowledge and experience. Any comments made are my own personal opinion. One should always consult with a licensed attorney, and not rely on opinions found on an adult message board. That being said:

Sorry, I don't read it that way. They declined that comment, the reason is really irrelevant. Besides:

Quote:

Three commenters commented that the record-shifting requirements under Sec. Sec. 75.2(a) and (b) are impermissibly burdensome. According to the commenters, primary producers would resist turning over records that contain trade secrets, such as the identities of performers. The Department declines to adopt these comments. The D.C. Circuit Court clearly held in American Library Ass'n v. Reno that the record-keeping requirements were not unconstitutionally burdensome. Any primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid compliance.

ronaldo · 05-26-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I will preface this comment by stating I am not an attorney, and by law am not allowed to dispense legal advise. No attorney-client relationship is established or implied. All opinions are based upon my own personal knowledge and experience. Any comments made are my own personal opinion. One should always consult with a licensed attorney, and not rely on opinions found on an adult message board.

You may not be a lawyer baddog, but it appears you either went to law school or know their disclaimer rules by heart.

Sorry man. Couldn't resist.

xxxice · 05-26-2005, 12:38 PM

I will be talking with my attorney in next few days will keep you posted

Silicon · 05-26-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

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

Might I suggest that might mean for each image you have, you can tag it with a home web-addy.

ie: you own gfy.com. You take a nude picture of jennifer. in the properties of that picture you place the home address where jennifers information can be found by the attorney general/his droogs. This solves the sanitized problem and keeps your models info private from stalkers/killers.

ALSO... how does this law affect forums such as GFY?
Most any forum out there has one stray picture.

baddog · 05-26-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldo

You may not be a lawyer baddog, but it appears you either went to law school or know their disclaimer rules by heart.

Sorry man. Couldn't resist.

I was a paralegal at one point in my life. Often got accused by attorneys of practicing law.

Oberon · 05-28-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I will preface this comment by stating I am not an attorney, and by law am not allowed to dispense legal advise. No attorney-client relationship is established or implied. All opinions are based upon my own personal knowledge and experience. Any comments made are my own personal opinion. One should always consult with a licensed attorney, and not rely on opinions found on an adult message board. That being said:

Sorry, I don't read it that way. They declined that comment, the reason is really irrelevant. Besides:

Hmm, I'm not reading it that way. What they're referring to there is the practice of saying 'I don't have to keep records, my primary producer has them, I'm just a secondary'. In actuality, when you read the requirements for a copy of ID, nowhere does it say you can't block info, it just says it has to be a 'legible' copy. Well... define legible for the purposes of this regulation, and you've answered the question. I suspect legal precedents exist elsewhere for what constitutes a 'legible' copy of ID, when privacy concerns exist.

baddog · 05-28-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Hmm, I'm not reading it that way. What they're referring to there is the practice of saying 'I don't have to keep records, my primary producer has them, I'm just a secondary'. In actuality, when you read the requirements for a copy of ID, nowhere does it say you can't block info, it just says it has to be a 'legible' copy. Well... define legible for the purposes of this regulation, and you've answered the question. I suspect legal precedents exist elsewhere for what constitutes a 'legible' copy of ID, when privacy concerns exist.

I am not going to argue interpretation with you. Seeking loopholes is something best left to attorneys.

Snake Doctor · 05-28-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I was a paralegal at one point in my life. Often got accused by attorneys of practicing law.

I thought you were an intellectual terrorist?

My attorney agrees with your interpretation. I have been advised not to accept ID's that have been altered in ANY way, including but not limited to blacking or blurring out information.

After Shock Media · 05-28-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I thought you were an intellectual terrorist?

My attorney agrees with your interpretation. I have been advised not to accept ID's that have been altered in ANY way, including but not limited to blacking or blurring out information.

Ok what if the model holds her thumb over certain non needed info when the picture is taken? It would not be altered in any way.

Snake Doctor · 05-28-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Ok what if the model holds her thumb over certain non needed info when the picture is taken? It would not be altered in any way.

I recently made a post in another thread that said basically this
"Is it worth 5 years of your freedom and afterwards living the life of a convicted felon because you wanted to get "cute" with the law?"

After Shock Media · 05-28-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I recently made a post in another thread that said basically this
"Is it worth 5 years of your freedom and afterwards living the life of a convicted felon because you wanted to get "cute" with the law?"

I was making a joke.

Snake Doctor · 05-28-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I was making a joke.

Ok, however, ALOT of people posting here will try to get away with something like that....and by doing so will dig their own graves

baddog · 05-28-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I thought you were an intellectual terrorist?

Actually, it was head partner of the largest insurance defense firm in the State of California that referred to me as an intellectual terrorist in a complain he filed with the Dept of Insurance.

It was the highest compliment anyone ever paid me.

chase · 06-05-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I'm wondering about that as well. The comments say that IF they required sanitized records that they would then also require the notary stuff. Since they chose not to do this...How can they enforce the notary part?

Let's say that they consider this "computer manipulation" of the docs. Well, according to their own regulations, a secondary producer is:

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Now, simply scanning and resizing the docs to give to secondary producers and or clients is also manipulating the docs.....But they are not requiring us to have that notarized.

Wait a minute...that passage isn't referring to docs, it's referring to actual sexually explicit content, isn't it, Aaron?

AaronM · 06-05-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chase

Wait a minute...that passage isn't referring to docs, it's referring to actual sexually explicit content, isn't it, Aaron?

Who cares what the passage is about? It's their use of the word manipulation that I was referring to.

Brujah · 06-09-2005, 02:36 PM

49 sanitized 2257

05-26-2005, 09:45 AM	#1
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	Sanitized 2257 Docs. Allow me to start by saying that I have yet to discuss this issue with an attorney, I'm simply reading these new regulations and trying to find ways to work within them. "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." Now, the way this reads to me is that the DOJ has decided not to "require" us to sanitize the docs. BUT...Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that we can't do so voluntarily. Your thoughts?

05-26-2005, 09:50 AM	#2
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	Aaron i posted about this a couple times - I don't see ANYWHERE in this law that prohibits a primary or secondary producer from sanatizing the ID's as long as the picture and legal name are there. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

05-26-2005, 09:52 AM	#3
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	"plan would be overly burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the record-keeping process." Like it's not already!! Anyway, I agree... it doesn't say anywhere that you can't do it, just that it's not required since it's too much of a pain to do. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

05-26-2005, 09:54 AM	#4
Lycanthrope Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 4,517	That is definately one way that it could be interpreted. It would at least give the lawyers ammo if shit did hit the fan, however, aren't the comments simply like 'discovery', and since these comments aren't in the reg itself, moot w/ regards to actual compliance? __________________

05-26-2005, 09:55 AM	#6
MarkTiarra Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 3,833	The interpretation I got concurs that you can "sanitize" them voluntarily. They are trying to discourage it some say because part of the "evil plot" is to make it so no chick would want to do porn cuz her name would be on it. But to actually make it a law to force them to show their true identity... that just would not have passed so instead they take this passive approach. I'm 99.99% certain you can sanitize them yourselves with no problem. __________________ Retired Pornosticator

05-26-2005, 09:55 AM	#7
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	you have a point the way it reads , it will be interesting to see what jd's thoughts are when you run it by him.I wish they would write this shit so it was very black and white instead of murky grey.

05-26-2005, 09:58 AM	#8
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Had the same question myself aaron, I did however notice and would pay attention to the noterized affidavit part of it. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

05-26-2005, 09:59 AM	#9
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	My concern with this would be.... if they don't say you can't sanitize.. and drop it at that.. then the question remains, what level of sanitization can be done? How much info can be censored and how much can't? Do you just have to take a shot in the dark and hope that home address, phone number and what ever is enough? __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

05-26-2005, 09:59 AM	#10
ronaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ#: 272000271 Posts: 5,475	That's one I noticed earlier and exactly how I read it Aaron. How they could prosecute someone simply for doing the work that they consider burdensome is beyond me. It's VERY nice of them to think of the workload on primary producers, but if they so choose to do it, I can't imagine a problem. The ONLY reason they give to NOT include it, is BECAUSE it's burdensome. To take it upon yourself to do it shouldn't be a factor. There is NOTHING that states the secondary producer must produce unsanitized records (that I'm aware of).

05-26-2005, 10:05 AM	#14
BradShaw Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: KB's trailer Posts: 7,840	I think Aaron is smarter than his lawyer. Either he is VERY smart, or his lawyer is not. __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

05-26-2005, 10:09 AM	#15
Nader Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Los Angeles, Ca Posts: 5,086	I really thing there will be more posted re: what we need. There are so many different opinions floating around. Your attorney should tell it the best.

05-26-2005, 10:10 AM	#16
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	the amount of sanitization that logically would be allowed is everything that is not required to comply with THEIR law - so you couldn't black out 'State of Washington' - then they have no idea what card they're looking at. Any info not EXPLICITLY required can be sanitized - address for sure. If you are looking out for the models best thing is ask them for a national ID card rather than state - harder to search through 50 states rather than one. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

05-26-2005, 10:10 AM	#17
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,622	I read this the same way. They clearly view it as a viable option but burdensome one. Having said that, I see no where that it provides cover for you if you provided sanitized 2257 info.

05-26-2005, 10:18 AM	#20
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	One of the reasons the DOJ gave for declining to adopt the suggestion of allowing sanitization, was the burden they perceived it placing on some webmasters. According to the preliminary legal opinion I got yesterday, the key issues in this section are that they did decline that option and that by extension, the information some had proposed "sanitizing" must therefore be included in plain. I'm sure anyone who has spoken to a lawyer will have been told that in matters like this, even expert opinions will vary. The opinion you decide to adopt is likely to reflect the degree of risk you are willing to take and this is a good example. It is clear that the DOJ wants to see all the details that would allow them to identify fully the models involved. Apart from what they have actually written, how could they check the validity of the information a site operator provides, with nothing more than a photocopied ID showing a name and birthdate? So you make a choice either to give them what they want, or to take advantage of what you or your counsel perceives as a loophole, and hope you can successfully argue that defense if the need arises.

05-26-2005, 10:32 AM	#24
media Confirmed Moneymaker Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Eugene, OR It's Like Jail, Only with Trees! Posts: 9,852	Though it says that it would be burdensome for providers to have to sanatize the docs I would also look at it from the angle that they might basicly be saying NO do not sanatize the docs, but not specificly specifying either way 100% Like JD said in an xbiz article, they require one form of ID, if you provide more than one ID, even to be thourough, you are violating 2257 requirements because it says you must provide one form of ID.. "Additionally, Obenberger added that one of the provisions state that nothing can be added to 2257 records. For example, if an extra piece of ID is obtained by a producer, it is a violation of 2257 law and can result in a maximum of five years in prison. "If you exceed the requirements then it is a federal crime," Obenberger said." It's very confusing to say the least.. Their wording in this is very "open" but still very limited... I'd like more expert opinion from our lawyers on this before we decide one way or another.. because as we all know, the government likes to do shady shit that can hem you up later.. __________________ I'm here for the violence!

05-26-2005, 10:39 AM	#26
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992	Good Post Aaron

05-26-2005, 10:52 AM	#30
Joesho want to get in shape Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: on the lake Posts: 12,329	I agree it is pretty easy if you know the state of origin, and the legal name to obtain the id # anyway, as many states have this information covered in their freedom of information acts. or state government info disclosure statutes. I would think that blocking the adress is OK as it goes directly to privacy, but leave the state issued vefifiable number Name, and DOB . That is my 2 cents __________________ Got any domains to sell? I proudly host all my stuff at www.rackco.com

05-26-2005, 10:55 AM	#31
Adam-EB Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Tampa Bay, FL Posts: 393	I posted the same question a few days ago. I am wondering the same thing. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

05-26-2005, 11:13 AM	#32
mahoney Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Las Vegas Nv Posts: 5,318	Good Question, only time will tell. Hopefully this will be clarified in the near future. __________________ Vegassexparty.com

05-26-2005, 11:54 AM	#34
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Problem solved. I just poured bleach over all my documents. They are now sanitized.

05-26-2005, 12:38 PM	#37
xxxice Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,042	I will be talking with my attorney in next few days will keep you posted

06-09-2005, 02:36 PM	#50
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	49 sanitized 2257 __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com