Log in

View Full Version : Google just takes Giant Step towards 'outing' dancers and camgirls



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

eagle2
04-21-2014, 10:36 PM
^^^ valid observation, eagle2. But then again you aren't risking your 'livelihood' by attempting to wear anti camera glasses where the dancers and camgirls would be. I'd simply point out that, if a strip club or webcam customer is given the choice of patronizing a beautiful girl without such glasses versus a different ( maybe ... hard to tell ) beautiful girl wearing anti camera glasses, they're probably going to choose the former.

I guess it would depend on the customer. I've seen adult videos where the female wears a mask. If some females can get away with wearing a mask, then glasses should be okay. I've also seen strippers wearing regular glasses. Maybe they'll be able to eventually come up with transparent glasses that can't be penetrated by cameras.

eagle2
04-21-2014, 10:37 PM
Just by coincidence, I came across this video on Facebooks's facial recognition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Rn38_vrLQ

Melonie
04-21-2014, 11:28 PM
and I also ran across this demo regarding 'real time' facial recognition matching to posted Facebook pictures ...



Again, while it's important to be aware of what today's 'mass market' facial recognition capabilities actually are, in point of fact it is much more important to project what the 'mass market' facial recognition capabilities will be a few years down the road !!! Like it or not, 'adult' images posted to the internet today ... via tube sites, strip club websites, customer uploads etc. ... will almost certainly still be there a few years from now. Thus future facial recognition capabilities could pose a major obstacle when it comes time to retire from camming / dancing, when you graduate with a college degree etc., and attempt to seek a 'straight' job.



Maybe they'll be able to eventually come up with transparent glasses that can't be penetrated by cameras.

indeed this is a possibility. Unfortunately, it won't help where tube sites, strip club websites, customer uploads etc. have already placed unobscured 'adult' images of dancers and camgirls into the online 'universe'.

Versalia
04-22-2014, 08:56 AM
I know that it's true, but I just don't understand why it is the way it is. Stripping as well as camming is legal in the United States. Why do we live in the society where if a girl was a stripper before, she's automatically without any further question and investigation is considered dirty, shameful, etc and is automatically guaranteed to not get a straight job. Isn't it unconstitutional? To me it sounds a bit like racism, when you discriminate someone by just one characteristic, but in case of strippers it is a discrimination by the work past.

Optimist
04-22-2014, 11:27 AM
I know that it's true, but I just don't understand why it is the way it is. Stripping as well as camming is legal in the United States. Why do we live in the society where if a girl was a stripper before, she's automatically without any further question and investigation is considered dirty, shameful, etc and is automatically guaranteed to not get a straight job. Isn't it unconstitutional? To me it sounds a bit like racism, when you discriminate someone by just one characteristic, but in case of strippers it is a discrimination by the work past.

It's sexism alive and thriving. The stripper is vilified and abused the man is patted on the back. As a side note I noticed even on SVU a supposedly pro-female show they go to great lengths to denigrate the strippers in any story line that has them. You can time a good three minutes of dialogue dedicated to contemptuous quip after quip until they have beat the stripper into the ground with verbal abuse. Once she's safely disarmed of any power or credibility they go on to investigating the crime. That's America. Men own their sexuality and men and their wives own other women's sexuality. We "entice" men to cheat and in everyone's eyes,the next morning, we deserve whatever we get.

Melonie
04-23-2014, 03:34 AM
^^^ actually, in many cases, the decision by 'straight' job employers not to hire former 'adult' industry workers is more pragmatic ( or at least so I have been told by business acquaintances ). From an employer's standpoint, a newly hired former 'stripper' ...

- increases the likelihood of other employees being distracted from their work
- increases the chances that a 'hostile workplace' lawsuit may be brought by the former 'stripper' or other female employees
- increases the chances that a 'sexual harassment' lawsuit may be brought by the former 'stripper'
- increases the likelihood that workplace drama will start coming from other female employees
- increases the likelihood that false accusations may come from other employees if the former 'stripper' is given a raise or promotion
- creates some chance that the business may experience 'public image' problems if the former 'stripper' employee is outed to business customers etc.

All of these situations involve additional costs to the employer, albeit that some of the costs like lost productivity due to distraction are more subtle than, say, legal fees resulting from potential lawsuits. Obviously, the actual costs of a former 'stripper' being outed ... i.e. a school system firing a former 'stripper' teacher, a local children's hospital firing a former 'stripper' nurse ... with associated bad local publicity and loss of 'public trust' ... is hard to quantify.

My business acquaintances tell me that, if given a choice of hiring a fully qualified applicant with an 'adult' industry background, versus hiring another fully qualified applicant with no such history, they will cover their own asses and hire the latter every time. Those business acquaintances would deny that sexism is involved in this decision ... merely economics and 'risk management'.

On the flip side, I'm told that certain prospective employers LOVE to hire ex 'adult' industry workers. Inner city hospitals and schools love being able to hire qualified nurses and teachers who are US citizens and speak fluent English without an accent. 'Boom Town' employers have no problem hiring ex 'adult' industry workers in any capacity, since things are generally so 'rough and tumble' that the possibility of sexual harassment lawsuits crop up 10 times a day and are expected to be thrown out of court.

lifetravelergirl
04-23-2014, 11:00 PM
---> and I believe that the 2nd amendment grants me the right to buy and own a lightweight rifle for hunting in my home state of New York, but the prevailing law nonetheless 'disagrees'.





The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting nor does it refer to the weight of any firearms. The second amendment was specifically about allowing the citizens to own and bear arms for their protection from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Melonie
04-24-2014, 02:50 AM
^^^ my point of course was not actually about New York's ban on lightweight semi-auto hunting rifles ( banned because they happen to share a single characteristic with an 'assault weapon' ... in this case a plastic stock ). I happen to agree with your classic interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Obviously, New York legislators and judges didn't share that view ! The important point is that legal decisions can and have been made, and laws can and have been passed, that 'disagree' with classic interpretations of constitutional rights and liberties. And such legal decisions and laws are often justified by 'public safety' concerns trumping individual rights / liberties.

This is, however, a highly relevant common point regarding regulation of the future use of 'Smart Glasses' and facial recognition software, where the 'public's right to know', and LE's need to ( continue to ) perform warrantless 'surveillance' on people in public places, will almost certainly trump an individual's ( already highly arguable ) 'right' to anonymity while in a public place that does not carry an 'expectation of privacy'.

As a result of some of the questions raised, I asked an attorney acquaintance to speculate regarding how this is likely to develop. His personal view was ...

- the 'Smart Glass' devices and facial recognition software will soon find their way into the hands of the general public ... well before any legal regulations are put in place

- some 'unfortunate incidents' will wind up occurring as a result of the criminal misuse of this technology, which will find their way into mainstream media

- at this point, legislator discussion regarding new regulations may start to take place

- as part of those discussions, LE, big business, and 'public right to know' advocates will line up on one side, with individual rights advocates ( my attorney friend mentioned 'tea party' types ) lining up on the other side.

Setting aside any and all political overtones, at the very least it appears that 'Smart Glass' devices and facial recognition software will soon wind up in the hands of the general public WITHOUT legal restrictions on their use in public places ( which, of course, includes strip clubs and the internet ). Whether or not legal restrictions are put in place at some point down the road is a separate question. Dancers and camgirls need to prepare themselves for dealing with this new technology soon being in the hands of the general public / their customers / prospective 'straight job' employers ... for some period of time at least.

ScarletKitten
04-24-2014, 03:49 AM
Well, I was going to say that all the dancers should start a petition in their clubs to starting banning this thing, but then I read about the contacts....and well, there's no way of banning those. Unless, they start checking people's eyes, or scanning their eyes for these particular contacts. But would clubs actually go to those lengths? Probably not.

Oh well. 1984 is here. It has been building up to this since 9/11/01. Just another way to ass-rape our basic privacy and liberty. This is why social media sucks. They have been planning this shit forever now. Just another facet of their grand agenda to keep us all in line, afraid, isolated, and stressed. So we don't come together....they want us isolated from each other, trapped in our own boxes so we are easier to control and manipulate with fear. Don't give in to fear, ladies. Keep going strong. I don't give a fuck anymore. I have no respect for this government/prison/military-industrial-complex/mk-ultra controlled-experiment fucking rat-race society. I have nothing to hide anymore because they are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves, cowering in the night, living in their underground hidden domes, operating HAARP controlling the weather and hiding alien civilization knowledge. It's only going to get worse. But we all have to just keep on fighting!

"Get up, stand up. Stand up for your right!" - Bob Marley (never forget it)

CFMNH44
04-24-2014, 07:53 AM
This! When is society in general going to come to the realization that many, many women have camed, stripped, escorted, bikini modeled, that they can't all be forbidden from working 'real jobs' or teaching kindergarten? Maybe because the economy still sux, we can afford to rule out otherwise qualified candidates because the pool is so large to pick from?


I know that it's true, but I just don't understand why it is the way it is. Stripping as well as camming is legal in the United States. Why do we live in the society where if a girl was a stripper before, she's automatically without any further question and investigation is considered dirty, shameful, etc and is automatically guaranteed to not get a straight job. Isn't it unconstitutional? To me it sounds a bit like racism, when you discriminate someone by just one characteristic, but in case of strippers it is a discrimination by the work past.

CFMNH44
04-24-2014, 07:54 AM
This! When is society in general going to come to the realization that many, many women have camed, stripped, escorted, bikini modeled, that they can't all be forbidden from working 'real jobs' or teaching kindergarten? Maybe because the economy still sux, we can afford to rule out otherwise qualified candidates because the pool is so large to pick from?


I know that it's true, but I just don't understand why it is the way it is. Stripping as well as camming is legal in the United States. Why do we live in the society where if a girl was a stripper before, she's automatically without any further question and investigation is considered dirty, shameful, etc and is automatically guaranteed to not get a straight job. Isn't it unconstitutional? To me it sounds a bit like racism, when you discriminate someone by just one characteristic, but in case of strippers it is a discrimination by the work past.

Vyanka
04-24-2014, 08:49 AM
This is terrible on so many levels. I brought this up to someone I know and she told me that a customer walked in with a pair of those, when they first came out.

I wouldn't think twice punching someone in the face if they walked into my club with that shit on. It's bad enough with cam/pic phones. Shit.

Melonie
04-24-2014, 09:48 AM
all the dancers should start a petition in their clubs to starting banning this thing, but then I read about the contacts....and well, there's no way of banning those. Unless, they start checking people's eyes, or scanning their eyes for these particular contacts. But would clubs actually go to those lengths? Probably not.

this raises some good questions ... which I just asked my attorney friend about ...

- under existing 'antique' law, clubs have the right to post a policy that bans photography inside the club. Under the same antique law, if a customer violates the no photography policy, the club has the right to confiscate film from the camera, but not the camera itself. In a 2014 'Smart Glass' or cell phone cam scenario, the club has the right to also ban the use of these devices. However, like the camera, the club cannot confiscate 'Smart Glasses' or cell phones used to take pics in violation of club policy. And since any pics will have already been transmitted to 'the cloud', there is no effective way for the club to stop images of dancers from 'escaping' from the club for use with facial recognition searches.

- However, the club's right to ban photography inside the club is 'over-ridden' by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA prevents clubs from refusing customers entry because they are wearing eyeglasses or contact lenses. Thus, arguably, the club cannot actually force a customer to remove certain styles of 'Smart Glasses' without facing a potential ADA lawsuit.

- The law, however, does not prevent the club from purchasing and installing a wi-fi jammer and a cell phone jammer. While such jammers would not prevent pics from being locally stored in cell phone or 'Smart Glass' memory, it would prevent such devices from transmitting images outside the club as well as from connecting to other computers outside the club which could run a facial recognition search. Jammers, in combination with strict bouncer enforcement of the use of cell phone cams and 'Smart Glass' cams ( i.e. deleting al locally stored images before allowing the customer and his cell phone or 'Smart Glasses' to leave the club ) could actually reduce the probability of successful facial recognition searches being performed on dancer images.

However, this jamming equipment would probably require at least a $1000+ investment on the part of the clubowner. since wi-fi and cell phone frequencies require separate jammers. And, obviously, the club would have to 'value' dancer anonymity more than customer dollars to actually provide strict bouncer enforcement which would 'offend' smart glass wearing customers.



she told me that a customer walked in with a pair of those, when they first came out.

Indeed, the use of these devices is only going to grow as time goes by. Also, the competing products are a lot more inconspicuous than the original Google Glass ... to the point where they may not 'stick out like a sore thumb' if worn into the club. Check out these smart glasses from ICIS ... see

http://www.glassappsource.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Icis.jpg

^^^ there's no way that a club customer wearing ICIS smart glasses is going to be spotted immediately. And this will be even more the case when smart contact lenses hit the market.

Of course, there is also the ( increasingly strong ) possibility that the club cares far more about earning money from customers than it does about protecting the 'anonymity' of the club's dancers ... at which point the club will simply leave smart glass wearing customers 'unbothered' and let the dancers deal with any consequences !!!



When is society in general going to come to the realization that many, many women have camed, stripped, escorted, bikini modeled, that they can't all be forbidden from working 'real jobs' or teaching kindergarten? Maybe because the economy still sux, we can afford to rule out otherwise qualified candidates because the pool is so large to pick from?

This was precisely the point made by my business acquaintances. As long as there is a pile of resumes from qualified candidates to choose from, the prospective employer is not going to subject themselves to potential increased workplace headaches and lawsuit risk by hiring a known 'adult' entertainer. This is also the reason that teachers, nurses etc with a known 'adult' entertainer work history won't have problems being hired by inner city hospitals and schools ... because there IS a shortage of qualified applicants ( since most teachers and nurses elect to work in a safer, more 'upscale', hospital or school environment ).

Vyanka
04-24-2014, 10:54 AM
These eye wear gadgets can't be safe to wear? I mean, there is a gadget on someone's face. That radiation can't be good. Hopefully, with that in mind ppl will think before twice before putting these on their face.

Heck. I don't sleep with my cel near my face.

Versalia
04-24-2014, 02:27 PM
These eye wear gadgets can't be safe to wear? I mean, there is a gadget on someone's face. That radiation can't be good. Hopefully, with that in mind ppl will think before twice before putting these on their face.

Heck. I don't sleep with my cel near my face.
You would hope so, but unfortunately majority of people are much rather to radiate the hell out of themselves than not to find out other people's business. On the side note, not only strippers lives will change with this "wonderful" invention, social lives of people not related to the adult industry whatsoever will change too. There will be no more normal flirting at the bars, everybody is going to know everything about each other; I also suspect that the criminal rates will "go high and reach the sky", since now every criminal will be equipped with a great tool that can help him determine whose house is more profitable to rob.

Optimist
04-24-2014, 02:45 PM
You would hope so, but unfortunately majority of people are much rather to radiate the hell out of themselves than not to find out other people's business. On the side note, not only strippers lives will change with this "wonderful" invention, social lives of people not related to the adult industry whatsoever will change too. There will be no more normal flirting at the bars, everybody is going to know everything about each other; I also suspect that the criminal rates will "go high and reach the sky", since now every criminal will be equipped with a great tool that can help him determine whose house is more profitable to rob.

I was thinking just yesterday that this will allow criminals to profile cops knowing where they live who their relatives are etc. The rationale for this was bullshit when applied to stars and it's bullshit when applied to the general public. No one has a "right to know" a stranger's business. Frankly if they want to protect the public from predators, update the sentencing instead of giving molesters and rapist a slap on the wrist while trying child offenders as adults and ignoring child abuse victims through rampant underfunding.

Vyanka
04-24-2014, 03:24 PM
You would hope so, but unfortunately majority of people are much rather to radiate the hell out of themselves than not to find out other people's business. On the side note, not only strippers lives will change with this "wonderful" invention, social lives of people not related to the adult industry whatsoever will change too. There will be no more normal flirting at the bars, everybody is going to know everything about each other; I also suspect that the criminal rates will "go high and reach the sky", since now every criminal will be equipped with a great tool that can help him determine whose house is more profitable to rob.

Yes. Wishful thinking.

minnow
04-24-2014, 04:10 PM
I have a few general questions along with related secondary questions:

1) Has anyone actually seen anybody wearing Google Glass ?
a) If so, how easily distinguishable was it vs regular glasses?

2) Has anyone actually purchased, or got an extensive "hands-on" sales demo with it ?
a) Did you find "GG" to be user friendly/easily adaptable for every day routine things ? (Surfing web, checking email, web surfing, getting driving
directions, etc.)
b) Did you find the presentable view to be easy to read, or would you use GG more to conveniently download/transmit to other device ?

3) For the facial recognition app., exactly which databases would it be tapping into ?
a) Multiple prior posts have mentioned Facebook. What if prurient "person of interest" doesn't have a FB profile pic ? Would driver license bureau
databases then be scoured?

I realize that a video without a name can be of concern for "adult industry worker" later wanting a more conventional job/career. Facial recognition in an incriminating vid sans a name could be enough to torpedo their chances. But the broader implication for every citizen being surreptiously snooped on is even more chilling, especially if app taps into driver license state agencies. Whats next, bank accounts, auto and real estate transactions, etc.?

Versalia
04-24-2014, 09:29 PM
Whats next, bank accounts, auto and real estate transactions, etc.?
As creepy as it sounds, I won't be surprised if they decide that bank accounts are "the public right to know" and that having every criminal know your business will turn "our big world into a small friendly village".

Melonie
04-25-2014, 03:59 AM
^^^ bank accounts no, but credit reports yes ! Indeed pulling credit reports is already possible via more conventional means. 'Smart Glass' technology really just speeds up the process.

In regard to Google Glass itself, one of my acquaintances purchased them as R&D developer some time ago, and a couple more purchased them last week when sales began to the 'general public'. Google Glass itself 'sticks out like a sore thumb' while being worn. However, other companies like ICIS have much less conspicuous 'smart glasses' almost ready to hit the market. And, of course, the 'smart contact lenses' now in the R&D phase will be virtually undetectable while being worn.

I have 'played around' with Google Glass, and personally I hate it !!! Apparently, it takes a fair amount of 'getting used go', and I find the device so 'creepy' that I really don't want to spend much time with it. However, it does perform as advertised, snapping pics with a 'wink'.

In terms of facial characteristic databases, obviously Facebook is an early developer since they are simultaneously promoting facial recognition software. I am told that 'tax bounty hunters' are already working with state DMV's and state tax agencies to incorporate the state driver's license photo database. And an acquaintance tells me that competing 'smart glass' and facial recognition software developers have had web bots running for over a year now with the express purpose of scouring online versions of newspapers, trade publications, yearbook and alumni publications, social media and other free web content, to assemble a searchable photo database. The intent apparently is to have ready a monthly subscription facial recognition + background search service that is similar to today's background search only website offerings by the time that ICIS and other 'smart glass' developers release their competing products ( thus driving down the price ) later this year.

NudeAutoMall
04-28-2014, 11:33 AM
This is simple to fix, step into any courtroom, ID the Judge and read off their home address, as there is usually a room full of people there that they do not want knowing where they live, nor what skeletons they have in their closet. It may cost a contempt of court charge, but I would bet some privacy laws come quickly into effect. And I'm sure there are other esteem people who don't want everyone knowing where they live.

Melonie
04-28-2014, 01:02 PM
^^^ actually, the identity and general personal info of judges, politicians, corporate exec's etc. is already a matter of public record. It won't make a speck of difference to them !

slowpoke
04-28-2014, 04:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Salaries too.

cherryblossomsinspring
04-28-2014, 05:03 PM
People wearing google glass will eventually get the shit kicked out of them. You have to think if someone is a murderer and goes into a coffee house seeing one of those guys sitting there, he'll beat his ass , stomp those glasses out just to avoid coming up on a search. If anything people with google glass will become targets not the ones targeting others.

It's like the person unknowingly became a security guard even if he doesn't get one of those nifty flash lights. Can you image what happens to men that kill for a living? They'll surely take out the google glass douche before doing their "job". Also the contacts? There are going to be some nasty eye injuries going to be reported in the near future and sales of a 'glass eye" where it's sole purpose will be for people not to stare into a dark hole in your face.

eagle2
04-28-2014, 05:36 PM
- However, the club's right to ban photography inside the club is 'over-ridden' by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA prevents clubs from refusing customers entry because they are wearing eyeglasses or contact lenses. Thus, arguably, the club cannot actually force a customer to remove certain styles of 'Smart Glasses' without facing a potential ADA lawsuit.


I would think the law wouldn't pertain to glasses with cameras. If a club bans cameras, I think the club would have a legitimate reason to not let a customer enter the club with glasses that contain a camera.

NudeAutoMall
04-28-2014, 07:14 PM
^^^ actually, the identity and general personal info of judges, politicians, corporate exec's etc. is already a matter of public record. It won't make a speck of difference to them !

True but unless you know where to look, and most don't, and the powers that be do try to hide this. For example our local Sheriff moved last year because too many criminals figured out where he lived. Many criminals are criminals because they don't use their brains. Indeed the criminals that use their brains have a special label, Politician.

You ladies have stalkers, which are bad. Judges make serious enemies. For example I'm always glad to tell you ladies how awesome you are, and I'm sure you hear that often, when is the last time you heard of a Judge as in even being liked.

justanothercamgirl
04-28-2014, 10:05 PM
You ladies have stalkers, which are bad. Judges make serious enemies. For example I'm always glad to tell you ladies how awesome you are, and I'm sure you hear that often, when is the last time you heard of a Judge as in even being liked.

I am amused that you think likeability is somehow equitable to a lesser degree of physical violence towards a person.

Last I checked bad things happen to good people.

Melonie
04-29-2014, 03:19 AM
I would think the law wouldn't pertain to glasses with cameras. If a club bans cameras, I think the club would have a legitimate reason to not let a customer enter the club with glasses that contain a camera.

This might be applicable to Google Glass specifically, since its design makes it immediately obvious. However, with other brands of 'smart glasses' that look exactly like regular eyeglasses from a distance ... and with the 'smart contact lenses' that will be hitting the market ... club staff would have to be rather 'intrusive' toward customers to determine whether a camera feature is present. And clubs would also have to be 'intrusive' toward customers if they are going to search for cell phones, pen cams, etc.

Maybe some clubs will decide that making an 'intrusive' effort to stop customers from bringing in camera equipped devices, likely pissing off and driving away some customers in the process, is worthwhile. I'm of the opinion that clubs will be more concerned with customer dollars than with dancer 'anonymity'. Certainly many of the examples posted earlier about clubs taking no action regarding customer use of cell phones inside the club supports that position.

NudeAutoMall
04-29-2014, 07:44 AM
I am amused that you think likeability is somehow equitable to a lesser degree of physical violence towards a person.

Last I checked bad things happen to good people.

Bad is bad no matter how you turn it, I don't mean to imply otherwise. This was said to indicate that Strippers have an audience that usually likes them, whereas a Judge has an audience typically does not like them.

And I was only using Judges as one example of political powers but, like a dancer, they would prefer their audience doesn't know where they live. Such personalities have the power to make the changes that are mutually beneficial.

Tourdefranzia
04-29-2014, 09:55 AM
Google launched a facial recognition search engine some years ago, but pulled it back because of the danger of abuse. This new app is a 3rd party creation, which Google has little/no control over. In order to make it work effectively, the owner of Google Glass will have to jailbreak their device, thus voiding any warranty and could damage resale value.

This kind of "outing" will work both ways allowing dancers and sex workers to do background checks on their customers in the clubs. The first elected official who is outed by Google Glass I'm sure will work his ass off to get public facial recognition software outlawed.

The funny thing is I have a customer who is a beta tester for Google Glass, and he doesn't wear them for esthetic reasons.

Melonie
04-29-2014, 10:32 AM
Google launched a facial recognition search engine some years ago, but pulled it back because of the danger of abuse. This new app is a 3rd party creation, which Google has little/no control over. In order to make it work effectively, the owner of Google Glass will have to jailbreak their device, thus voiding any warranty and could damage resale value.

Arguably, the real reason that Google pulled back on their own facial recognition software was to take the associated personal privacy controversy 'off the plate' so that it would not negatively impact their public image / the initial public release of Google Glass, as well as to prevent Google from 'taking heat' as being the first company to make facial recognition software widely available. However, at this point, Google Glass has already been released to the public, the third party facial recognition software is already 'out there', competing facial recognition software is being released by other major companies ( i.e. Facebook ), a number of companies are also offering 'smart glasses', etc. As such, Google is no longer in danger of being singled out as the 'bad guy'. At the same time, personal privacy advocates now have 'multiple targets' that they must aim at ... which will dilute the effectiveness of any potential future personal privacy initiatives they might attempt to launch.

Thus, arguably, Google has little to gain but potentially much to lose by continuing to hold back on their own facial recognition software.

eagle2
04-30-2014, 09:26 PM
One factor that might make it more difficult for people to post unauthorized photos of dancers or cam-girls, would be having to provide proof of the entertainer's age. Under US law, adult websites must be able to provide documented proof that the entertainers are over 18 years old.

Melonie
05-01-2014, 03:16 AM
^^^ indeed, that's a valid legal point ... and potentially a good idea.

However, it only applies to blatant sexual content. Thus 'mere' nude pics / videos of dancers on stage or camgirls on cam wouldn't trigger the requirements of Section 2257. Yahoo, dailymotion, and any number of other 'mainstream' upload sites routinely skirt this issue ... and it's unlikely that they'll be willing to risk their existing business models by forcing every user to make a section 2257 submission for 'mere' nude pic / video uploads when the letter of the law doesn't require them to do so.

smaddy
05-02-2014, 09:07 PM
Facebook is already using facial recognition software. They also collect your data from posts and what you like and sell it to companies doing market research. I can only imagine what they are doing behind the scenes with the government. If facebook is doing this, i'm sure twitter is also. Most of us use twitter! But you know, once I got into this industry I had to accept the fact that I'm probably going to be outed one day and people are going to know.

Melonie
05-03-2014, 03:30 AM
once I got into this industry I had to accept the fact that I'm probably going to be outed one day and people are going to know.

Indeed, you have gone straight to the 'bottom line' regarding what's actually at stake in a world where 'stealth' photography and facial recognition software isn't just available to gov'ts and big businesses, but also to 'regular' people. Girls who enter the 'adult' industry with an up-front understanding that their 'adult' industry work history is probably NOT going to be kept a secret will be relatively unaffected. Girls who enter the 'adult' industry with the hope that their 'adult' industry work history will not be outed may be affected. But girls who have entered the 'adult' industry, but also invested heavily in the fact that their 'adult' industry work history will never be raised with future professional 'straight job' employers, may be severely affected.

Melonie
05-03-2014, 04:10 AM
and with Google Glass now being for sale to the 'general public', it didn't take long until .... from


(snip)Google Glass haters, beware: Glass wearers are planning meetups in a series of “Glass Night Out” events across the country Saturday.

The Glass community is coordinating the events, which Google promoted in a Google+ post on Thursday. Google is hoping its Explorer faithful will "help dispel Glass myths to all," the company said in its post.

The idea of a computer and recording device on one's head has made some non-Glass users uncomfortable, and it has pushed the conversation about etiquette and social norms in a connected world. Establishments including bars and movie theaters have kicked out Explorers (whom critics call "Glassholes").

In February, Google released an etiquette guide explaining how users can avoid being labeled a "Glasshole" when strutting around with the headware. The company followed up with a post in March about the "top 10 myths" about Glass, which include the idea that Glass is always recording.(snip)









It's part of a continued effort to reduce the polarizing effect of the $1,500 Glass headsets -- which let users snap photos, shoot video, perform a search and do lots of other smartphone-like tasks in front of their eyes.

Melonie
05-18-2014, 04:28 AM
and the 'hits' just keep on coming ... from the NY Times at

(snip)Never Forgetting a Face


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/05/18/business/18face-illo/18face-illo-master675.jpg

Dr. Atick is one of the pioneer entrepreneurs of modern face recognition. Having helped advance the fundamental face-matching technology in the 1990s, he went into business and promoted the systems to government agencies looking to identify criminals or prevent identity fraud. “We saved lives,” he said during the conference in mid-March. “We have solved crimes.”

Thanks in part to his boosterism, the global business of biometrics — using people’s unique physiological characteristics, like their fingerprint ridges and facial features, to learn or confirm their identity — is booming ***

Dr. Atick finds himself in a delicate position. While promoting and profiting from an industry that he helped foster, he also feels compelled to caution against its unfettered proliferation. He isn’t so much concerned about government agencies that use face recognition openly for specific purposes — for example, the many state motor vehicle departments that scan drivers’ faces as a way to prevent license duplications and fraud. Rather, what troubles him is the potential exploitation of face recognition to identify ordinary and unwitting citizens as they go about their lives in public. Online, we are all tracked. But to Dr. Atick, the street remains a haven, and he frets that he may have abetted a technology that could upend the social order.

Face-matching today could enable mass surveillance, “basically robbing everyone of their anonymity,” he says, and inhibit people’s normal behavior outside their homes. Pointing to the intelligence documents made public by Edward J. Snowden, he adds that once companies amass consumers’ facial data, government agencies might obtain access to it, too. ***

Just a few months back, he heard about NameTag, an app that, according to its news release, was available in an early form to people trying out Google Glass. Users had only to glance at a stranger and NameTag would instantly return a match complete with that stranger’s name, occupation and public Facebook profile information. “We are basically allowing our fellow citizens to surveil us,” Dr. Atick told me on the trade-show floor. ***

Dr. Atick is just as bothered by what could be brewing quietly in larger companies. Over the past few years, several tech giants have acquired face-recognition start-up businesses. In 2011, Google bought Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition, a computer vision business developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. In 2012, Facebook bought Face.com, an Israeli start-up.

Google and Facebook both declined to comment for this article about their plans for the technology.

Dr. Atick says the technology he helped cultivate requires some special safeguards. Unlike fingerprinting or other biometric techniques, face recognition can be used at a distance, without people’s awareness; it could then link their faces and identities to the many pictures they have put online. But in the United States, no specific federal law governs face recognition. A division of the Commerce Department is organizing a meeting of industry representatives and consumer advocates on Tuesday to start hammering out a voluntary code of conduct for the technology’s commercial use.

Dr. Atick has been working behind the scenes to influence the outcome. He is part of a tradition of scientists who have come to feel responsible for what their work has wrought. “I think that the industry has to own up,” he asserts. “If we do not step up to the plate and accept responsibility, there could be unexpected apps and consequences.”

‘Not an Innocent Machine’

A few uses of face recognition are already commonplace. It’s what allows Facebook and Google Plus to automatically suggest name tags for members or their friends in photographs.

And more applications could be in the works. Google has applied for a patent on a method to identify faces in videos and on one to allow people to log on to devices by winking or making other facial expressions. Facebook researchers recently reported how the company had developed a powerful pattern-recognition system, called DeepFace, which had achieved near-human accuracy in identifying people’s faces. (snip)

Sexy_Jenny
05-18-2014, 09:59 PM
I don't care at this point if anyone finds out that I'm a dancer. What I do care about is an asshole from the club waiting by my door for me to come home because he knows my address. So I was thinking, to prevent the stupid "smart" glass bullshit from recognizing my face and sending customers to my door, maybe I could glue a fake nose on, kinda like they do in theatre? Yeah, it's a lot of work and probably extremely uncomfortable, but I'm willing to go this far if it helps to prevent every idiot from knowing my business

Vyanka
05-18-2014, 11:37 PM
My manager told me that a piece of shit customer got kicked out of the club recently , bc he was sitting in front of stage wearing a watch with with a blinking blue light. It was an incognito camcorder.

Melonie
05-19-2014, 09:57 AM
^^^ yup, watches, pens, car key clickers, flash drives, sunglasses, shirt buttons etc. are all now available with embedded 'spy cams'

see

Optimist
05-19-2014, 11:33 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/google-glass-banned_n_3039935.html

Comments:
Every person wearing these glasses becomes a broadcast network, essentially. In video mode, they can record their every move -- in public restrooms, gym locker rooms, department store dressing rooms, theaters, playgrounds, everywhere. A stranger can broadcast YOUR activities and those of your children to the world. The potential for abuse is staggering.

This is why credit cards need to change as well, into those quick swipe type of cards, or a simple card with no information on the card, only on the swipe strip, no names or numbers for anyone to see with Glass

PhatGirlDynomite!!!
05-23-2014, 01:10 PM
I fucking hate google. I really do. They make it so difficult to do business and build marketing plans that won't cost an arm and a leg. It's like they know everything and we know nothing. The game is rigged. I'm just venting right now because I can't see all of the keywords used to find my web pages because the users were logged into their google accounts. In this instance their searches are protected. It's old news but I'm not any less sore about it. Fuck those google glasses. I wish everyone would just start using bing. *sighs*

sexylittleboy7
05-23-2014, 06:32 PM
Some people need glasses to see the strippers! Maybe somebody could sell a creep-device detector? One that could also work on cameras hidden in buttons, etc.?

la
05-24-2014, 08:03 PM
Well damn

Melonie
05-25-2014, 06:43 AM
Maybe somebody could sell a creep-device detector? One that could also work on cameras hidden in buttons, etc.?

maybe ... someday. However, this requires massive R&D investment. Google has tens of millions invested in Google Glass, and competitors have invested millions in soon to be released competing products. Google, and their competitors, are not likely to invest additional millions to research technologies that reduces the 'usefulness' of their products !!! So finding a financlal backer for such technology is unlikely.

Also, there is an earlier 'example' i.e. the development of cell phone jamming equipment soon after cell phones became ubiquitous. Investors did see a need for such a product, invested in it's development, and as a result released effective jammers to the open market. Response was that ( under undoubted lobbying pressure by the cell phone makers and cell phone service providers ) the gov't promptly outlawed sale of such devices to the open market ... leaving the jammer investors with a huge loss. The gov'ts stated reason justifying the cell phone jammer ban was 'public safety' ... as if a person couldn't walk a hundred feet to get out of jammer range to make a 911 emergency call. Nevertheless, thanks to the gov'ts stroke of a pen ( arguably prompted by earlier strokes of a pen on cell phone maker / provider political donation checks ), cell phone jammer investors were signed into the 'red' and US citizens / businesses lost their 'right' to jam cell phones on their own private property.



Some people need glasses to see the strippers!
'
In fact, Americans with vision problems are specifically protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act ... which is already creating a legal 'problem' for theaters and other businesses trying to ban 'smart glasses' that are also provided with prescription lenses. Also, this is the arguable real reason that Google Glass competitor ICIS has spent so much time and effort to 'repackage' their smart glasses into a form that has the external appearance of plain eyeglasses ... with the same capability of integral prescription lenses ( see pics of ICIS smart glasses on the previous pages of this thread ).

sexylittleboy7
05-25-2014, 12:10 PM
maybe ... someday. However, this requires massive R&D investment.

How about a metal detector? They could be "required" to scan for "guns, knives, and other weapons." All electronics have to have electrical conductors in them in order to work. Hassle? Yes, but surely customers don't want other customers photographing them, do they? Cell phones with cameras should really have to be checked at the door. They are a convenience, not a necessity. If you're waiting for an important call, or the babysitter might call, give a tip to the coat/phone-check girl and ask her to answer your phone and page you!!! How did anyone survive before cell phones? In fact, for the comfort of other customers, all cell phones should be checked in the lobby.


In fact, Americans with vision problems are specifically protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act ... which is already creating a legal 'problem' for theaters and other businesses trying to ban 'smart glasses' that are also provided with prescription lenses. Also, this is the arguable real reason that Google Glass competitor ICIS has spent so much time and effort to 'repackage' their smart glasses into a form that has the external appearance of plain eyeglasses ... with the same capability of integral prescription lenses ( see pics of ICIS smart glasses on the previous pages of this thread ).

What about courtrooms in which cameras are not allowed? How do they deal with this menace? And besides, you aren't allowed to take a gun into a courtroom even if you fit it into prescription glasses. Why should these weapons be any different?

Although one could argue that the ICIS, etc., glasses that look like plain eyeglasses have that design to facilitate disabilities arguments, I'd say their primary motivation is to produce something that the majority of potential customers will feel comfortable wearing. Second, and to a much lesser degree, to fool the customers' victims into a false sense of security.

Between now and the contact lenses (and it still doesn't address all the other spy devices designed for creeps), private owners should still be able to require customers to hand over their glasses for inspection prior to entry. The onus can then go to the customer to remove the camera and leave it at the door. They can be allowed to bring their prescription lenses inside, as long as they check the camera.

Melonie
05-25-2014, 03:11 PM
^^^ unfortunately, a strip club is not in the same 'category' as a court building or an airport where security laws are concerned. If a private business owner attempted to implement similarly thorough measures, the results could range from customers attempting to sue the club / theater / whatever, to customers simply 'changing up' for another competitor down the street who won't attempt the same 'security' measures. See recent court rulings against 'stop and frisk' laws.

So yeah a given club could potentially stop smart glasses, spy cams etc. by instituting new 'security' measures against every single club customer ... but may lose a good number of customers in the process. Very few clubowners are going to actually be willing to take that risk ... and especially so given the fact that virtually all negative fallout resulting from the use of smart glasses and/or spy cams will fall onto the dancers and not onto the club itself.

sexylittleboy7
05-25-2014, 06:12 PM
^^^ So, clubs have to just sit back and allow guns, cameras, and any other weapons inside?

Melonie
05-26-2014, 08:21 AM
^^^ no, they can enact 'policies' which prohibit such things. However, actually attempting to 'enforce' such policies without placing the club in a position of having their ass potentially sued off by club customers is a whole 'nuther 'can of worms'.

What can a clubowner legally do if it's discovered that a customer has snuck in a pen camera ? The law says they can't confiscate the camera, only the film ( but there is no longer any film ). They can ask the customer to leave the premisis. But the customer still has the 'stealth' pictures of dancers he took, and can use them in conjunction with facial recognition technology to show up at the dancer's front porch if the customer so chooses. Obviously, with smart glasses or cell phone cameras, the customer could have already e-mailed the 'stealth' pics or video to a cloud server within seconds ... quicker than a bouncer or manager can spot the customer and approach !!!

If a clubowner attempts to use detection equipment or 'frisking' of customers in an attempt to locate cameras before the customer is allowed admission, the club had better use an equal level of detection and 'frisking' on every single customer. If the club waves in a well known 'whale' customer without subjecting him to the same detection and 'frisking' measures as other customers, the clubowner leaves himself wide open to lawsuits from the other customers who were forced to undergo detection and 'frisking'. Obviously, clubowners do not want to 'piss off' their 'whale' customers, who aren't going to tolerate detection and frisking. Clubowners are not going to willingly expose themselves to new lawsuits ( i.e. imagine a young black customer suing for racial discrimination because the clubowner 'frisked' him, but waved through the rich white customer ! ). Clubowners are not going to want to invest in thousands of dollars worth of detection equipment, etc. And especially so given that virtually all negative consequences of 'stealth' pics and videos do not actually affect the club itself, but only affect the photographed dancers.

So to answer your question, clubs don't HAVE to sit back ... but they will CHOOSE to sit back ... because taking any serious action to 'protect' dancers from 'stealth' photography will cost the clubowner money while providing zero direct benefit in return.

Melonie
05-26-2014, 09:31 AM
... and, all other considerations aside, Google Glass owners are highly 'organized' ... thus able to exert a lot of 'leverage' regarding businesses who attempt to restrict Google Glass wearing customers ... from

(snip)"New York-based restaurant Feast says that Google Glass owners are hurting its business, following a slew of one-star reviews posted to Google.

Toward the end of last month, a customer wearing Google Glass walked in for brunch. As the story goes, one of the managers asked her to take them off before sitting down to eat. The manager didn't think it'd be a problem because one Glass wearer had complied in the past. But this time, the woman refused and left.

After the incident happened, Glass wearer Katy Kasmai wrote about it on Google+.

"For the first time ever this place, Feast, in NYC just asked that I remove +Google Glass because customers have complained of privacy concerns in the past," Kasmai wrote. "Never has happened to me before in the one year I've had Glass. I left."

Over 100 people commented on her post — some whom said they would've left the restaurant, too. One person even suggested giving the restaurant negative reviews.

"Everyone should give them a one star rating on Google Maps," one person wrote.

Shortly after Kasmai wrote the post, the restaurant noticed a slew of one-star reviews on Google reviews. Last week, its rating went as low as 2.4 stars. It's currently at 3.1.(snip)


the relevant take-away from this news story is that business owners who attempt to force customers to remove Google Glass potentially face 'real world' negative economic consequences via organized bad review postings. In the case of strip club owners, this development only creates more reason why clubowners are likely to simply 'sit back' on the issue of serious enforcement against 'stealth' photography.