When the law can't keep up with reality even after this long, that's not an excuse, it's an indication of a broken system.

Indeed. Especially when in cases like this, when you’re talking about fingerprints, passport information, gender, parents names, marital information — not to mention standard PII fare — all coupled with the fact that nude photos/videos can be tied to this data too.

This makes me physically sick.

2257 was passed well over a decade ago, with minimal public dispute. The only concerning thing is if the models don’t fully understand what the law entails. All affiliate publishers have to have that information under the law.

Also, because of face recognition there really is zero anonymity at this point. It would be very misleading to represent to someone otherwise.

The lawyers don’t even understand how the law says data is supposed to be segregated [1], how are the performers supposed to know.

Also, there is a very big difference between citing facial recognition tech (which while rapidly becoming more common, is still something that requires a degree of skill to use and has a real cost to using) as a reason for “zero anonymity” and having public records with direct ties to nude photos and videos leaked. It’s even more misleading to represent that these have the same risk profile.

[1]: https://lawofsex.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/keeping-your-recor...

> I don't have it here / I don't have it now / It's not me who keep them / It wasn't me at the time / I don't know

More like the state should not need it at all. Why support even more surveillance?

That's not a bug - that's a feature.