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."

Comments

Re:In the uk

[LF11]

In the US, FOIA requests can be denied on the basis of privacy violations (exemption 6), and law enforcement information (which this qualifies, I think) can be denied if its release could endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. http://www.foia.gov/faq.html#exemptions

I wonder...

[ShaunC]

Does the state's database only include actual strippers? In Ohio, police stole a woman's drivers license information and assigned it to an undercover officer, who then got hired on as a stripper as part of a sting operation. It sure would suck if, after being victimized by the police in that manner, a woman was then subjected to who knows what sort of harassment from a random citizen who just wanted to "pray for" her.

Gov't still doesn't get privacy

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Re:Gov't still doesn't get privacy

[JaredOfEuropa]

Expense claims should be a matter of public record since it is our money they are spending, but again only the relevant data should be exposed: how much and on what, but not where. Interestingly, while the gun owner info was freely given, the government agencies fight requests for expense reports tooth and nail. Personally I would like to know why a 10 person junket from my city's government to NYC ended up costing over €300k. Now I don't expect high ranking officials to travel coach, but I do expect them to be somewhat careful with public funds. When they aren't, we have a need and a right to know.

Re:This should be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't enter suit as a plaintiff to block a records request without revealing your identity to the court, and, therefore, other parties to the case.

IANAL, but I believe you can hire a lawyer to file a suit as an anonymous plaintiff, for a legally justifiable reason of course.

Open records isn't the issue here

[dirk]

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.

Re:This should be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, Roe v. Wade was brought by an anonymous plaintiff. "Roe" because there was a simultaneous case brought by a "Doe".

Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[Jane Q. Public]

There would be no issue here if the state didn't have a BS licensing law.

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.

The licensing law is bad because it is the licensing law itself that led to this conflict between public's right to know and an individual's privacy. I do agree that the individual has a right to privacy away from the workplace... but it is the STATE that is violating it with this STUPID law.

The funny thing is that under most circumstances, nudity is not legal in Washington... except, I guess, when you're on stage without a license.

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[OzPeter]

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?

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[wonkey_monkey]

The last sentence should have said "public nudity is LEGAL" in Washington

I found this:

(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.

which seems not to indicate that "the exception is when a person is nude for the purposes of shock or intimidation."

"knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront" seems likely to cover most cases of public nudity.

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[NotSanguine]

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.

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[shutdown -p now]

I imagine that's also why they charge $75 for the license - to protect the poor and abused?

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[ChrisMaple]

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.

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[schnell]

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?

Look, I think this is a stupid law, but it's not hard to see past your objections and see where the state is coming from.

It's not all that terribly hard to get a fake ID that will pass muster at a bar. (It's a different issue to get one that will pass muster at a TSA check, or passport application, for example.)

You accidentally let a 19-year-old in to drink with a fake ID, not a huge deal in terms of liability, right? You will probably get fined if he/she gets caught in a sting, worse if they get a DUI, but it's pretty understandable and unlikely to put your strip club out of business.

But let's say a 17-year-old has a good fake ID and gets a job stripping at your club. What is your liability if someone takes pictures and you are the source of "child porn?" What about if she is doing tricks on the side and, worse than abetting prostitution, you are abetting "child prostitution?" Repeat this same exercise for any number of potential legal violations.

It is in the interest of all the strip club owners that saying "this person is OK to be a person who shows their boobies for money" is in the hands of the state rather than the bartender or bouncer who interviewed her/him on their first day of work. (And also theoretically in the interest of anyone who goes to that club and wishes to film, proposition or otherwise engage them.) It sounds puritanical at first, but from a liability limitation perspective I think it is very defensible.

Re:Yes, but the real problem is being ignored.

[martin-boundary]

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...

Depends.... One could be walking into a stripclub and then realize, too late, that it's called The Blue Oyster Bar....

Let's hope he doesn't prey on them...

[bledri]

That said, you'd think an all knowing God already knows who the strippers are.

a historic relic no longer tolerated.

[nimbius]

In the past these repositories of personal information, names addresses and dates of birth,were maintained in the explicit interest of providing an expedited avenue for puritanical groups to harass and intimidate through the power of the state. In the past many owners of gay and lesbian night clubs were targets of assaunt and assassination through public records. Today, many modern puritanical laws infringe upon liberty in the pursuit of extremist religious doctrine as well. for example, abortion records have no HIPAA protection in order to explicitly allow religious groups to target service practitioners, customers, and staff. Lately that targeting has been of a distinctly terrorist nature through the reticle of a high powered rifle, or the blast radius of an improvised explosive. Of course Mister Van Vleet insists he merely wants to 'pray' for the dancers. He insists the prayers will not function through their stage names alone, but only through their real names which is strange as many christians pray for the troops amorphously and not by name. when pressured by a journalist, he insisted he would not harm the dancers but that prayer was merely 1 of many 'protected reasons' he needs the names.

strip clubs, whatever we may think of them, are a beacon of nothing less than american liberty. they dont exist in Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea and to suggest as this religious zealot has that somehow 7 million washingtonians are as fervently interested in the personal information of less than 100 dancers is to succor a distant memory of 1850 when the riverboat was queen and the negro was "scientifically" inferior. The menace of sexual temptation in the 21st century as it applies to 'decency' of any nation ranks rather lowly on this millenials list of concerns, trumped easily by the menace of having to explain to his 7 year old son what to do in a school shooting.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...

Re:a historic relic no longer tolerated.

[rhysweatherley]

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.

I call bullshit

[JustNiz]

It seems to me that you actually don't need someone's personal details just to pray for them.

Re:What does God need with a starship?

[frovingslosh]

You clearly don't have a good understanding of prayer. Clearly God knows everything and has a supreme vision of how his eternal plan is to unfold. Prayer is a way to say to God "excuse me, but I would like you to change your plan, I have an idea of how things should progress, and I would like you to at least consider if my idea isn't the right way for things to go". Clearly no one would bother the Almighty just to say "I approve of how you plan to have all things develop, keep up the good work", so when contacting God to ask him to change his plans you better have good facts, like names and addresses and exact birth dates of any strippers that you want him to change his plans for the universe over. Otherwise you're just bothering him needlessly.

If only the licenses were easier to get....

[Fencepost]

If they were easier to get I'd happily cough up the $75 to become an officially licensed exotic dancer, but the county referenced when I first saw this story a few days ago looked like it'd be a pain unless you were actually an employee of one of the businesses.

Of course, if I did this my wife might actually demand that I dance for her and that could just be ugly all around. I am not a man built for a stripper pole.

Jade

[PopeRatzo]

I'm interested in the real identity of Jaquie from the Industrial Strip Gentleman's Club in Hammond, IN. Sweetie, if you see this, call me. Daddy's been bad again.

Don't look at me like that. She's working her way through law school, you know.

Re:In the uk

[LF11]

I disagree, emphatically. There are all kinds of government-owned information which should never be publicly visible. Individuals in witness protection programs, tattoo identification experts, certain expert witnesses, concealed weapons permit holders, gun ownership records in general, undercover officer identities, and so on.

Mind you, I consider myself to be an extremist libertarian bordering on anarchist, and I still think there is lots of information which (if it exists in the first place) should never be publicly revealed.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot?

[grcumb]

First they came for the strippers...

Then they needed about half an hour to recover.

Then they came for the strippers again.

Re:This should be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called filing under seal.