Slashdot Mirror
Washington Dancers Sue To Prevent Identity Disclosure
An anonymous reader writes with this BBC story about a Washington open-records law that is having some controversial consequences for some unlikely people. "Government open-records requests can be boring. Government open-records requests made by a man who wants to obtain information about 70 licensed strippers in his town so he can 'pray for them', on the other hand... The godly citizen in question is David Allen Van Vleet of Tacoma, Washington. In September he filed court papers to obtain personal information on 70 government-licensed nude dancers at a nightclub in his area — including their full names, addresses, photos and dates of birth. (Yes, Washington requires nude dancers to pay a $75 a year license fee.) The county auditor granted his request under the state's open-records law - although she also notified area dancers and club managers of her action. On 21 October two licensees sued to block the release of the information. Two days later a county judge issued a temporary order blocking the release, with a final decision scheduled for 15 December."
Under the freedom of information act this would be refused likely on the grounds of data protection or No discernible public interest. Does the US law not have an equivalent?
Same idiocy happened here in the Netherlands when a journalist, someone with extreme leftist connections and a known ETA (terrorist organization) sympathizer, requested the names and addresses of firearms license holders under open government laws. In the end, the guy did not get the requested info i.e. name and address, photo, and serial numbers of the weapons, but he did get a list of date of birth and city of residence of each license holder as well as the manual for Verona, the software that tracks firearm licenses. As a gun owner, the idea of government freely handing this info to people closely tied to ETA terrorists somehow does not give me a warm cozy feeling about sensitive data being in safe governmental hands.
It's very simple: "open government" means that the government should disclose information on the details of their own operation, but never information that can be tied to individuals, except where it concerns information on holders of public office that is relevant to the right of the public to monitor them. Only aggregated data on citizens should be disclosed. And for civil servants or elected officials, relevant data means stuff like expense claims, not stuff like their address, records of previous employment or registered religion.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
IANAL, but I believe you can hire a lawyer to file a suit as an anonymous plaintiff, for a legally justifiable reason of course.
The open records request and fulfillment isn't the issue here. If the government licenses someone, you should be able to request the information of everyone with that license (although I'm not sure home information should be included since it is a professional license). This would be the easiest way to see who is and isn't a licensed professional.
The issue is why in the bloody hell is the government licensing dancers? There is no reason to do that other than they want to collect some extra fees from people. There is no professional service being offered that a license would effect. The purpose of licensing professionals is to ensure that the person meets some basic requirements. Unless they are going to try and require a minimum cup size or dancing ability, there isn't anything to license here.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Umm, Roe v. Wade was brought by an anonymous plaintiff. "Roe" because there was a simultaneous case brought by a "Doe".
That said, you'd think an all knowing God already knows who the strippers are.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Seriously: who or what interest does the state imagine it is "protecting" with this license? It isn't there for practical purposes, it's there for the purposes of intimidation and control.
How about keeping underage girls out of strip clubs? That would be something reasonable to achieve?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It seems to me that you actually don't need someone's personal details just to pray for them.
strip clubs...they dont exist in Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea ...
Oh, you can be sure strip clubs exist there too. It's just that the average Schmoe is not rich enough or well connected enough to swing an invite. The same economic rules apply everywhere: money can buy anything and corrupt religious hypocrites can usually be found living it up in the local red light district.
Going into a strip club and being "affronted" by the nudity is like going into a bar and being "affronted" by the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Certification is not necessarily licensing. You wouldn't even need to require the certificates -- just use them as an easy way to prove girls are over 18.
Of course, because the strip clubs have no other way to verify someone's age without a state registration declaring intent to remove their clothes for money.
I mean, they never do that sort of thing when they allow people to enter such a club, or allow them to buy alcohol. We need age verification registration for alcohol purchases too! You'd think we'd have figured something like that out by now.
It's a travesty! Think of the children!
If only we had some sort of state-issued document that verifies your age -- maybe even with a picture on it. I guess that's just a pipe dream, huh?
Are you folks being deliberately obtuse, or have just not looked in your wallet recently? Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
There are other, sensible reasons for such a law. Many strippers engage in prostitution, and many have a history of drug problems. Education and safety training, and simple disease control, can be profoundly eased by reaching out to the registered strippers. It's also a way to check the age of employees, and try to keep children, especially runaways, out of that dangerous line of work.
Such a registry is certainly subject to abuse. Sex workers are certainly subject to stalking, and many families or former sexual partners who would harass or even endanger them. Others are just trying to make ends meet to take care of family and don't want their families to discover how they're paying the bills.
I imagine that's also why they charge $75 for the license - to protect the poor and abused?
Assuming that a stripper will engage in drug use or prostitution is a violation of one of the fundamental principles of American law, "Innocent until proven guilty." And don't give me any bullshit about "It's only a correlation, we're not actually assuming they'll misbehave", because the state assumes misbehavior. If the state actually takes any action based on the simple act of being a stripper, it will quickly become harassment.
It's none of the state's damn business. any more than sugary carbonated beverages or nose-picking.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate