Log in

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

sexylittleboy7
05-26-2014, 01:14 PM
^^^ So, what can we do?

Melonie
05-27-2014, 01:07 PM
^^^ damned if I know !!! Not wanting to go near political aspects, but ...

- Americans have been steadily giving up 'privacy' rights since 9/11, thus there's little chance of an outright legal ban being enacted ( especially covering 'public' venues like strip clubs or the internet )

- the big US tech industries, of which Google is now the largest, seemingly always 'get what they want' from the government.

- if 'strippers' and camgirls wind up being a focused media 'target' over this issue, some Americans will undoubtedly propose a different sort of 'cure' for this problem that would be even worse for 'strippers' and camgirls.

Ultimately, one possible outcome will be that dancers and camgirls who are concerned about being 'outed' may quit the industry. This will leave more money for those dancers and camgirls who are NOT concerned. Of course, this could also essentially take dancing and camming 'off the table' for those girls who view dancing and camming as a high income 'stepping stone' toward an eventual 'straight' career - and in the process convert dancing and camming into 'careers' unto themselves. Recent ACA / IRS efforts to force strip clubs and webcam hosts to issue 1099 income reports were the first step in this direction. 'Smart glasses' plus facial recognition technology will just accelerate the trend toward no longer being able to keep dancing and camming activities a 'secret' from potential future 'straight' job employers and/or state professional licensing agencies.

In the final analysis, the eventual release of totally inconspicuous devices like 'smart contact lenses' could make EVERYBODY a potential 'target' for facial recognition technology based searches. When these 'smart contact lens' devices hit the market, beautiful women won't have to appear on a strip club stage or a webcam host site to become 'targets' ... it will be just as likely to happen at beaches, night clubs, colleges, gyms etc.

eagle2
05-27-2014, 06:46 PM
^^^ 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 !!!

Even with facial-recognition software and a photo, a customer can't find a dancer's address with it, or even her name, unless there is a page that has a photo of that dancer with her personal information. It's always a good idea to limit the amount of personal information you put on Facebook or anywhere else on the internet.

sexylittleboy7
05-28-2014, 12:18 AM
Even with facial-recognition software and a photo, a customer can't find a dancer's address with it, or even her name, unless there is a page that has a photo of that dancer with her personal information. It's always a good idea to limit the amount of personal information you put on Facebook or anywhere else on the internet.

...True enough, except this is far from under your control: State DMVs are selling their databases, so you also have to make sure you never get a driver's license or state-issued I.D. You have to make all your in-person purchases in cash or wear a mask, otherwise the name on the credit card account gets attached to your picture from the "security" camera. Whenever somebody who knows your name uploads a photo with you in it to facebook and facebook asks for the name (you know, "only" for the convenience of that one user and/or his/her friends) of the face it wasn't able to identify, who's going to stop that old classmate from telling Big Brother? And just because a search doesn't currently produce a name and address, doesn't mean that the photo in the query doesn't get stored in the database as John/Jane Doe #1,234,567. This still allows compiling a list of sightings of this individual. When, one day, your prospective employer looks it up they still find out you were dancing.

Melonie
05-28-2014, 03:17 AM
It's always a good idea to limit the amount of personal information you put on Facebook or anywhere else on the internet.

yes, absolutely !!! Every bit of personal information that you voluntarily post on the net is fair game for the web-bots which are compiling ID databases. But the reality is that high online school / college records, local news media reports, etc. already contain the necessary photo ID data for millions of Americans without having to rely on social media sites or gov't databases. Thus all the web-bots need to do is dredge through existing online info.



this is far from under your control: State DMVs are selling their databases, so you also have to make sure you never get a driver's license or state-issued I.D

This is true already, but under limited circumstances. For a fact a couple of states have already provided access to their driver's license photo ID databases to tax 'bounty hunter' subcontractors. I'm obviously concerned that, armed with 'smart glasses' plus access to the state DMV database, a tax 'bounty hunter' can make a pass through any and every strip club in a particular state, feed the resulting dancer face pics through a facial recognition search, run the list of resulting dancer real names, addresses and social security numbers against the state's income tax return files, and wind up with a short list of known dancers who haven't been paying income taxes !!! The tax 'bounty hunters' obviously get paid a percentage of any additional tax revenues they are able to collect on behalf of the state thus IRS ... with dancers potentially making very lucrative 'targets'.

eagle2
05-28-2014, 05:09 PM
...True enough, except this is far from under your control: State DMVs are selling their databases, so you also have to make sure you never get a driver's license or state-issued I.D. You have to make all your in-person purchases in cash or wear a mask, otherwise the name on the credit card account gets attached to your picture from the "security" camera. Whenever somebody who knows your name uploads a photo with you in it to facebook and facebook asks for the name (you know, "only" for the convenience of that one user and/or his/her friends) of the face it wasn't able to identify, who's going to stop that old classmate from telling Big Brother? And just because a search doesn't currently produce a name and address, doesn't mean that the photo in the query doesn't get stored in the database as John/Jane Doe #1,234,567. This still allows compiling a list of sightings of this individual. When, one day, your prospective employer looks it up they still find out you were dancing.

There are laws protecting the privacy of DMV records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

The reason most people go into stripclubs is to enjoy themselves, not to take photos of dancers and place them on the internet so that employers can find out if applicants were strippers at one time. Also, most employers aren't going to do intense searches of the internet to find out if applicants previously worked as a stripper. I recently went through a background check by an employer and they didn't even look at my LinkedIn page.

eagle2
05-28-2014, 06:07 PM
As I said before, it's always a good idea to be careful about what personal information you put on the internet, but if a customer manages to sneak a photo of you in the club, it doesn't mean your life is ruined. My biggest concern would be about people you do know, such as an ex-boyfriend or a boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, rather than strangers who go into the club for entertainment.

temptingmodel
05-28-2014, 07:09 PM
iphone has apps to pull info from drivers license.
my kid did it to her teachers.
dob
address
full name

sexylittleboy7
05-29-2014, 12:27 AM
How about a camera recognition device that seeks cameras and zaps them with a laser? Er, I mean "treats" the cameras to some extra light?

Melonie
05-29-2014, 02:31 AM
^^^ under 'photography era' laws, it is illegal to 'damage' the camera even if that camera has been used contrary to posted policy !!! It IS legal to confiscate film ... but of course today's cameras don't use film. It is arguably legal to erase all stored images ... but with today's cell phones or smart glasses, a copy of the images will have already been sent to a 'cloud server' where they remain 'untouchable'.



Also, most employers aren't going to do intense searches of the internet to find out if applicants previously worked as a stripper. I recently went through a background check by an employer and they didn't even look at my LinkedIn page.

Indeed it is true TODAY that, outside of 'professional' jobs requiring a state professional license, and outside of jobs involving the 'public trust', odds are that 'vanilla' job employers aren't going to expend the effort to investigate applicants much farther than a criminal record check and a credit check. What's unknown, and potentially dangerous, is how widespread the in-depth background checks performed by state professional licensing agencies and 'public trust' employers may become in the future. TODAY these so-called FBI level background checks are relatively expensive and relatively time-consuming.

However, a few years from now, in-depth background checks are likely to become cheap and quick ... thanks to facial recognition technology plus established ID databases. Thus it's rather likely that 'vanilla' job employers four years from now will get facial recognition search results back right along with criminal record search results they receive today, and probably for the same low price being charged by the background check service !!!

Obviously, this is an 'unknown variable' for anybody considering investing 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars to obtain a college degree ... on the premise that their previous 'adult' industry work history will remain a secret thus not compromise 'professional' job opportunities after they graduate.


In regard to state driver's license database accessibility, they are already available to gov't contractors ( like the tax 'bounty hunters' previously mentioned ). A couple of states have also lost FOIA related lawsuits over this issue, on the basis that drivers' licenses are public documents which the 'public' has a right to examine. This was already the case for 'professional' licenses.

Optimist
05-29-2014, 07:58 AM
There are laws protecting the privacy of DMV records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

.

http://www.local10.com/news/Florida-Makes-63M-Selling-Drivers-Info/3078462

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/07/ohio_collects_millions_selling.html

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/cbs-11-investigates-your-personal-information-for-sale-you-cant-opt-out/

Clara_M
05-29-2014, 09:51 AM
I must say, I really don't like this stuff at all. The late 90s will probably have been the high point of society, when technology brought a lot of benefits, without so many of these kinds of drawbacks.

Out of some sense of paranoia, I've always kept photos offline, and I'm glad I have, but I have to say, it has come at a huge cost. People think I'm weird for refusing to put up pictures everywhere. That's the current social view. I've just been "creeped" by LinkedIn, actually. It linked a work identity with some personal things, possibly due to people uploading their "contact names" to it, and I really didn't like what it came up with as proposed contacts.

I'm less eloquent about it than Melonie, but as freaked out about all this as her posts would suggest we all should be.

Cheo_D
05-29-2014, 08:33 PM
Right, that is another of the risks of the omni-linked existence: that others you are in contact with will just be letting it all hang out without a care, in a manner you can't control, and the data search will come at you from their direction.

From the side of both the governmental and corporate worlds it's considered just the finest thing to be able to look up everything about everyone, and the sad part is that largely it was ourselves that handed over the keys to our private space. Some states have had to explicitly legislate that your employer cannot ask of you full user password access to your personal social media accounts as part of "following" or "friending" the company.

Eventually it's almost inevitable there will arise human equivalents of CarFax, private for-profit entities that for a "modest" fee will dig up as much info as they can get their hands on about us, and it will be considered just fine for employers to use them. You think your credit report is a headache now...

Melonie
05-30-2014, 01:24 AM
^^^ in point of fact, 'car-fax' like background check services already exist ! They are routinely used by many prospective employers to screen job applicants. See

Depending on the amount the prospective employer is willing to pay, these services can already provide reports of citizenship / green card verification, criminal records, credit report data, income tax history ( requires signed 4506-T permission form ), and a host of other information. Facial recognition software will simply add one more 'service' for these companies to offer.

eagle2
05-30-2014, 04:16 PM
Employers must get prospective employees' consent before running a credit check, and in some states it's illegal.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/running-credit-checks-applicants-35457.html

Melonie
05-31-2014, 04:04 AM
^^^ also true. However, 'sensitive' employers aren't 'shy' about requiring potential ( second round ) job applicants to sign permission forms for credit report disclosure, for IRS tax records disclosure, etc. today ... and aren't likely to treat facial recognition search technology any differently.

Obviously it's probable that WalMart and other 'low-skill level' employers aren't going to bother making the effort to investigate potential new hires beyond the mandatory legal work status check, criminal record check etc. However, it's a virtual certainty that state professional licensing agencies are going to perform in-depth background checks including credit report and tax record checks on 'professional' license applicants. And it's increasingly likely that 'public trust' employers are going to require ( second round ) applicants to sign credit and tax permission forms ... because banks, schools, legal firms, hospitals, gov't agencies, etc. will gladly invest a few hundred extra dollars 'up front' for in-depth background checks to avoid a possible future incident involving high publicity damage to the employer's 'public image' / business reputation.

This is a direct result of highly publicized 'incidents' over the past few years, one of which actually involved one of my industry 'friends' ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhFleeZCjk



Right, that is another of the risks of the omni-linked existence: that others you are in contact with will just be letting it all hang out without a care, in a manner you can't control, and the data search will come at you from their direction.


The obvious take-away is that the same internet technology that began to allow 'fans' / personal acquaintances to out persons with an adult industry background a few years ago is increasingly being used by prospective employers today to try and 'out' prospective job applicants BEFORE they are hired, thus allowing the prospective employer to avoid future incidents which could damage their 'public image' / business reputation as happened in the case of my 'friend' above. Perhaps my proximity to this past 'incident' makes me hyper-sensitive to the possibilities of both today's background check potential, and to tomorrow's increased background check potential thanks to facial recognition search technology ? Truthfully, though, I don't think so !!!

Requiring ( second round ) job applicants to sign permission forms for credit report disclosure, for IRS records disclosure, for future facial recognition search etc. is thus extremely likely for employers who are concerned about their 'public image' / business reputation. As stated earlier, the advent of facial recognition search technology is really just another 'evolutionary' step in the personal background information search process that already exists using 'paper trail' records and today's limited online search capabilities ( i.e. social media sites, Google searches ).

The applicant can of course refuse to sign such disclosure forms, but with the highly probable result that the prospective employer will assume the person has 'something to hide' thus dropping the applicant from their 'short list'. These days, prospective 'sensitive' employers have a large pool of qualified applicants to choose from, thus have no motivation whatsoever to take a chance on a new employee with 'question marks' in their personal history.

Clara_M
06-01-2014, 09:12 AM
It's bad enough when the NSA is doing it, but now it looks like it'll effectively be everybody snooping in the same way.

Maybe these folks are just ahead of their time:

37725

in terms of protecting their privacy.

Cheo_D
06-01-2014, 03:24 PM
The applicant can of course refuse to sign such disclosure forms, but with the highly probable result that the prospective employer will assume the person has 'something to hide' thus dropping the applicant from their 'short list'. These days, prospective 'sensitive' employers have a large pool of qualified applicants to choose from, thus have no motivation whatsoever to take a chance on a new employee with 'question marks' in their personal history. Y'know, that does bear keeping in mind not just about the subject at hand but also about social-media behavior especially by the younger generation. The prospective employer has the upper hand. Some people may be thinking "hey, who doesn't have something embarassing in their past, it's not like what I did was a crime"... Well, just so happens, one, a LOT of people probably have kept a clean(er) record in their life, and two, it does not have to be evidence of a crime, for an employer to decide that maybe they don't want you working for them or a business that maybe they don't want to deal with you. (And antidiscrimination laws only work for the causes that are explicitly mentioned in the laws, not for any and every cause.)


BTW some businesses in NYC recently decided that they would request patrons to NOT use "Google Glasses" in the premises. Google Glass fanatics (charmingly nicknamed "Glassholes") who were not the affected customers proceeded to spam Yelp with bad reviews of those businesses. So part of the problem is that a segment of the population not just sees absolutely nothing wrong with being collaborators in the creation of a realtime surveillance society, but believes it is their civil right to do so.

Melonie
06-01-2014, 05:57 PM
one, a LOT of people probably have kept a clean(er) record in their life, and two, it does not have to be evidence of a crime, for an employer to decide that maybe they don't want you working for them or a business that maybe they don't want to deal with you. (And antidiscrimination laws only work for the causes that are explicitly mentioned in the laws, not for any and every cause.)

Indeed, prior to actually hiring a new employee - at which point employee 'rights' become an issue - prospective employers have extremely little obligation to explain their reasons for deciding NOT to hire particular applicants. And even if the issue could successfully be raised, an 'adult industry' background would almost certainly be viewed as a valid reason by the 'powers that be'. As stated in other threads, it's a statistical fact that employers who do hire new employees with 'adult industry' backgrounds experience more 'embarrassing' public incidents, more 'hostile workplace' lawsuits, etc. which cause financial and reputational damage to that employer.



part of the problem is that a segment of the population not just sees absolutely nothing wrong with being collaborators in the creation of a realtime surveillance society, but believes it is their civil right to do so

Yes, and that segment of the population has disproportionately high 'leverage' ... as does Google itself.

sexylittleboy7
06-01-2014, 06:00 PM
^^^ [Gl]assholes enjoy their "right" to piss in other peoples' breakfast cereal. The only long-term solution I can see is to stop rewarding malice and to stop stigmatizing harmless behavior. But malice is necessary for the current world order to function and frustrating sexual implulses makes populations malicious.

PinkGeisha
06-12-2014, 01:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhFleeZCjk



... I'm sure I'm not the only one that was disgusted at how blatantly and lewdly almost ALL the reporters were dismissing and DEVALUING the "adult worker" just trying to make a living on a vanilla job and leaving her porn past behind her. I think the only person I give half an ounce of credit to is the dude that said he owned some of her videos, and from viewing those, he knew that she was a hard and honest worker...

As far as Google Glasses/facial recognition software is concerned, f*ck me. I personally believe as a whole, the world needs to start changing their views on pornography and sex, since it is now ancient and dated. And as blasé as the saying may be, "If it's to be, it's up to me". I get to first change my views on the porn industry I work in, and when I happen to speak to my vanilla friends about it, I get to give them the UPDATED and NEW way of thinking that is CURRENT with the times of NOW. TODAY. 2014.

Enough people talk in the "new and updated way", groupthink will naturally take over via evolution and our entire planet will evolve to view porn industry workers in a new and different light.

Just my .02 ;D

Melonie
06-12-2014, 03:07 AM
^^^ in regard to my 'friend' working as a teacher's aid, the 'public outing' she underwent, and the 'heat' directed at the school system that hired her, was a motivating factor for EVERY school system to start running in-depth background checks on future employees. Had facial recognition search capability regarding existing internet images existed a few years back, it would have undoubtedly matched my friend's face to her boxcovers, thus prompting the school system to simply not hire her.

The relevant point regarding this thread topic is that, prior to facial recognition search capability, my 'friend' got publicly outed after being hired by the school system. But at the same time, there were probably 999 other girls with adult industry backgrounds who also got hired but did NOT get outed after the fact. However, with facial recognition search capability against internet images available to prospective employers, it's now likely that 500 of those 1000 girls will not get hired in the first place !!!


^^^ In the way of 'updated' thinking regarding adult industry workers, all I can say is ... 'be careful what you wish for'. See the 'New Prostitution Laws in Canada' thread elsewhere in this forum !!! Their new 2014 'legalization' of prostitution may have a whole bunch of unintended consequences which will 'hurt' adult industry workers far more than it 'helps'.

AnaheimJill
06-12-2014, 04:02 AM
Just a random thought - do we know this facial technology works all that well?

Think of speech recognition technology and how pathetic it is:

Clara_M
06-12-2014, 07:24 AM
It doesn't look like it works 100%, but it works well enough to be a problem, and at the very least to flag things for human review.

This + Facebook + all the rest of "it" creates an environment where people's early choices (and even just plain bad luck) will follow and define them throughout life. Only non-creative "goody-two-shoe" types will have doors open to them. It's bad, really bad, with consequences well beyond the adult industry, but the adult industry is likely to feel the "heat" faster than others. Come to think of it, the adult industry is often at the forefront of technology... for good and bad.

slowpoke
06-12-2014, 07:56 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/FutureTech/story?id=1139800

Melonie
06-12-2014, 09:32 AM
^^^ kicker with the infrared jamming is that SOMEBODY has to invest thousands of dollars to buy and install the equipment. Clubowners have zero motivation to do that. And camgirls obviously CAN'T use such a system because it will block her own camera !!!

eagle2
06-13-2014, 04:38 PM
If the hottest dancers don't want customers secretly taking photos and videos of them, then the clubs that want the best dancers will have a lot of motivation to buy such equipment. I'm sure that the quality of the dancers in a club has a significant impact on that club's earnings.

Clara_M
06-13-2014, 07:22 PM
The trouble is, there will be enough of the "hottest" ones that have a short-term focus that it won't affect the club's earnings significantly. It's a problem in general, this short-term focus business, in many circumstances, but in this case, it's particularily severe.

Melonie
06-14-2014, 03:18 AM
^^^ true. And the short term focus doesn't just involve the dancers. Trying to convince a clubowner that a $5-10,000 ( or whatever ) expense to install infrared jamming lights will provide a tangible benefit for that clubowner ( given that all of the 'negatives' stemming from stealth club pics or videos fall on the dancers ) will be a huge uphill battle. And on the flip side, some clubowners may also figure that installing infrared jamming equipment may actually impact the clubowner negatively, via loss of potential 'free advertising', or at minimum by increasing the club's future electricity bills.

Also, in terms of evolving strip club business model, an increasing number of clubowners arguably do NOT fixate on hiring and retaining the 'hottest' dancers these days. Instead what they're after is dancers who will generate the most revenue for the club. For better or worse, this increasingly means dancers who are willing to offer 'extras' ... which results in higher private dance / VIP sales rates ... which in turn results in higher club revenues via the club collecting a percentage of those increased private dance / VIP sales.

Admittedly, upscale big city 'show' clubs, whose target customer base consists of rich businessmen, DO care about hiring and retaining the 'hottest' dancers. The upscale customers in these big city 'show' clubs would also consider an infrared jamming system to be a desirable improvement because it would lower the chances of the customers themselves being the victim of stealth pics or videos recording their own strip club activities. But in the grand scheme of things, this upscale segment comprises just ~20% of the overall 'market', thus just ~20% of overall dancers ... perhaps even less.

And on the 'flip side', infrared jamming equipment also jams club security cameras ... meaning that greedy short term focused clubowners in both upscale and average clubs might agree to install infrared jamming equipment, but as a de-facto means to tacitly promote 'extras' being offered in the club ... leading to increased club revenues that would in turn 'pay for' the clubowner's investment. Thus there's a real question of 'be careful what you wish for' !!!

drewburner69
06-14-2014, 07:25 AM
I cant believe how inexpensive this stuff is! Any AH can get it.

drewburner69
06-14-2014, 07:28 AM
I just read the infrared jamming post - thanks Melonie of the information

Melonie
06-14-2014, 11:08 AM
I cant believe how inexpensive this stuff is! Any AH can get it.

If you're talking about infrared jamming equipment, individual units are very inexpensive. However, unless you're willing to wear one of these units installed on a pair of glasses etc. ... with the infrared beam thus pointing directly at the suspect camera, one unit isn't going to do 'jack s#!t'.

To cover an entire area ( like an entire stageside, or a private dance room ), enough of these units are needed to raise the overall infrared light level in the area to the point where the camera's CCD is 'overwhelmed'. The basic idea is the same as not being able to take a recognizable visible light picture if the sun is behind the 'subject'. The only difference is that humans can't see the 'infrared sun', while the CCD camera can !!! It takes lots and LOTS of infrared LED's to achieve this sort of infrared light level in an open area ... thus the $5-10k initial cost, plus a significant increase in electric bills to power the hundreds or thousands of infrared LED's.

If you're talking about the cost of pen cams, keychain cams, watch cams etc. yup you're looking at less than $100 ... sometimes MUCH less.

PinkGeisha
06-14-2014, 04:06 PM
If you're talking about infrared jamming equipment, individual units are very inexpensive. However, unless you're willing to wear one of these units installed on a pair of glasses etc. ... with the infrared beam thus pointing directly at the suspect camera, one unit isn't going to do 'jack s#!t'.

To cover an entire area ( like an entire stageside, or a private dance room ), enough of these units are needed to raise the overall infrared light level in the area to the point where the camera's CCD is 'overwhelmed'. The basic idea is the same as not being able to take a recognizable visible light picture if the sun is behind the 'subject'. The only difference is that humans can't see the 'infrared sun', while the CCD camera can !!! It takes lots and LOTS of infrared LED's to achieve this sort of infrared light level in an open area ... thus the $5-10k initial cost, plus a significant increase in electric bills to power the hundreds or thousands of infrared LED's.

If you're talking about the cost of pen cams, keychain cams, watch cams etc. yup you're looking at less than $100 ... sometimes MUCH less.

Question: So what if the ladies that are concerned with facial recognition start wearing glasses with these infrared light jamming equipment installed inside so it messes up the cameras where it counts, on facial recognition? Or is that not possible...?

Melonie
06-15-2014, 05:09 AM
^^^ It would depend on clubowners / club customers being willing to tolerate dancers looking like this ...


http://cdn.pocket-lint.com/r/s/727x/assets/images/phpbzr84u.jpg


... thus my assumption is that this is not a 'realistic' option !!!

Melonie
09-21-2014, 02:55 AM
Today's Houston Chronicle is reporting on a court ruling which could have significant potential impact .... from


(snip)"The state's highest criminal court on Wednesday tossed out part of a Texas law banning "improper photography or visual recording" - surreptitious images acquired in public for sexual gratification, often called "upskirting" or "downblousing" - as a violation of federal free-speech rights and an improper restriction on a person's right to individual thoughts.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said photos, like paintings, films and books, are "inherently expressive"

"The camera is essentially the photographer's pen and paintbrush," the opinion written by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller said. "A person's purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves."

The appeal questioned why some free speech can be treated as unlawful behavior in Texas. Peter Linzer, who teaches constitutional and First Amendment law at the University of Houston Law Center, said: "It's hard to see how you could make taking a picture a crime."(snip)


The arguably pertinent point is that this court ruling potentially officially 'de-criminalizes' the shooting of 'stealth' pics and videos of dancers by strip club customers for 'personal' use ... since strip club stages are considered to be a 'public' place and dancing on stage is considered to be a 'public performance'.

NudeAutoMall
09-21-2014, 05:41 AM
White LED's, although maybe not all, can flair out a digital camera even though they may be dim or even unnoticeable to the human eye. Get creative, make them a gem in your jewelry. Ear Rings or a headband would flair out your face, nipple piercings, belly piercings, clit piercings, or a Belly Belt, garter, etc. It wouldn't take much.

maximvsv
09-22-2014, 11:56 PM
iphone has apps to pull info from drivers license.
my kid did it to her teachers.
dob
address
full name

There are people already running around with stuff to ping RF chips in people's credit cards and such and other electronics that can be scanned from a distance. Combine that with facial recognition software and these cameras, and you don't need Google to make the cross-references. You can have people out just harvesting the stuff for identity theft and surveillance in general.

Melonie
09-23-2014, 03:07 AM
^^^ Absolutely true. While Google Glass has received most of the publicity, as has already been pointed out in this thread ...

- there are other 'smart glasses' available which are far less conspicuous than Google Glass, with a 'smart contact lens' to follow.

- there are pens, watches, buttons, keychains etc. already available 'on the cheap' which also have 'stealth' photo capability

- there are an increasing number of programs / apps which offer facial recognition search capability using a variety of different photo databases.

The bottom line conclusion would appear to be that we are now living in a 'new normal' where it's no longer safe for any dancer or camgirl to assume that her 'adult' industry work history and / or true identity can be kept secret from future straight job employers, state professional licensing agencies, family courts, even obsessive customers.

DippityDoDa
01-02-2015, 01:58 AM
I just joined MFC and was only on for three hours. When i got off line I checked my emails to find someone had IDed me by name. So creepy. First time ever and only on for 3 hours. I figured out it was because the image I used could be URL track backed via Google Image recognition quickly and easily to ID me. So creeped out now!
http://www.google.com.au/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html

Red Velvette
01-02-2015, 04:00 AM
Dippity,was that an image you had used on personal social media before? (or one that was taken in a series that had been used on your personal social media?) Or was that pic one that had been taken for the sole purpose of promoting your business?

DippityDoDa
01-02-2015, 04:29 AM
Dippity,was that an image you had used on personal social media before? (or one that was taken in a series that had been used on your personal social media?) Or was that pic one that had been taken for the sole purpose of promoting your business?

Hi Red - Thanks for replying so quickly as I'm a bit distressed about it. The image was one that was on personal social media and also on a professional profile so it was out there. I didn't think about that at the time. I just liked the pix. I didn't think guys would go to such lenghts as I had my profile shown as a competely different state

Trixia
01-09-2015, 11:54 AM
Gonna go on the other side of the fence on this issue after dancing for the last year. Bring on the camera's! As a very open dancer anything to cut the # of girls in the clubs lol.

I have this luxury of opinion though as I'm very open to friends and family now about being a dancer so I can't really be outed and don't mind people knowing.

I already feel that the industry is going in this direction. Even with the no video no pictures rules at our club I catch people taking video and photos all the time. I've caught guys at my tip rail shooting video and the dj didn't even notice. This doesn't even include stealth cameras.

But hey if it makes one less girl audition I'm all for it. Money is awful and the clubs are hiring nearly anyone who auditions. Half the girls working today wouldn't have made the cut this time last year.

DorienG
05-04-2015, 12:48 PM
Great:-\ "Oh, I want to see how cute you look without your glasses', during interaction/lap dance?

Melonie
05-04-2015, 01:04 PM
. Bring on the camera's! As a very open dancer anything to cut the # of girls in the clubs lol.

I have this luxury of opinion though as I'm very open to friends and family now about being a dancer so I can't really be outed and don't mind people knowing.

I already feel that the industry is going in this direction. Even with the no video no pictures rules at our club I catch people taking video and photos all the time. I've caught guys at my tip rail shooting video and the dj didn't even notice. This doesn't even include stealth cameras.

But hey if it makes one less girl audition I'm all for it.

This was actually the topic of discussion in a recent Stripping forum thread.

I agree that, between club website pics, self uploaded pics, stealth club customer pics being uploaded, etc. it's increasingly becoming a given that facial recognition search technology will provide the ability for a 'determined' friend or family member, potential future straight job employer, etc. to out a girl's exotic dancing work history. Thus, as you imply, girls who are particularly sensitive to having their 'stripping' activities outed should think twice about remaining in the profession.

I also agree that, from a practical standpoint, it's going to be difficult or impossible for clubs to control stealth photography, even if the club is willing to post a formal 'no cameras' policy. Many clubs aren't willing to post such a formal policy because they fear it will drive away customers who are required to answer their cell phones etc. And the ongoing development of stealth cameras, from watch cams to button cams to next year's camera equipped contact lenses, makes it increasingly possible for stealth photography to completely escape the attention of dancers and bouncers.

If that also happens to reduce dancer competition for 'serious, professional' dancers who don't really care whether they are outed or not ...

Likethis
05-08-2015, 03:03 PM
I really don't like this development...

They've been using facial recognition as a form of access control (if that's the word for it, talking about the system to control who enters a building) for a couple years now in one of the sport facilities I go to and I think that type of use of facial recognition systems is alright - when it's done in a way that respects everyone's privacy and when they don't gather all sorts of information about you.

But this... This is just horrible.

miss.a.p1600
05-09-2015, 09:58 AM
This is all mind boggling. If club owners don't care about covert recording especially from customers end - which they should since I doubt every single club follows every single law - then what if dancers wore covert recording devices and started filming the inner workings of the club (how many reality shows have been filmed in a strip club?) or caught extras on film or recorded married customers spending their community money on 'other women' in the strip club.

This whole thing sounds sexist and a violation of rights to me.

Like lets secretly record a dancer while she's half or butt ass naked in a legal performance and then blackmail her (aka revenge porn) or post on some site to make a profit that she nor the club will get a cut of. And if it wasn't for the club they never would have gotten that footage.

Im getting those contacts cause if anybody is recording me without my permission (and using that footage to cause harm) the I'm recording their ass and reverse blackmailing

Melonie
05-10-2015, 04:37 AM
^^^ You've raised a very interesting point. So far, the ability of a dancer to carry and operate a stealth camera inside a strip club has been inherently limited by the fact that the ( partially ) nude dancer isn't able to conceal the device. The introduction of Google's camera equipped contact lenses will obviously change that !!!

Theoretically speaking, indeed the ability of a future dancer wearing camera equipped contact lenses could gather all sorts of 'blackmail' materials by recording her intimate interactions with well-to-do club customers. Utilizing such 'blackmail' materials would obviously be highly illegal, but undoubtedly a few dancers might be tempted to try such a scheme. Speculating further, if one or two such future incidents were to be publicized, the likely result would be that future well-to-do strip club customers would quickly become EX strip club customers !!! This could potentially 'poison' the upscale big city strip club business model, because the upscale customer base undoubtedly consists of prominent local businessmen, bankers, doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. whose careers could be damaged should their strip club 'exploits' become public !!!

Indeed there might be a few cases where 'sick' strip club customers might attempt to hold out 'adult' pics / videos of dancers as a means of coercing the dancer into doing something the 'sick' strip club customer wants ... in exchange for the 'sick' strip club customer turning over / destroying those images etc. But this would actually accomplish nothing, since the 'sick' strip club customer certainly won't be the only strip club customer capable of shooting and posting stealth images / videos of that dancer.

But in more general terms, the use of stealth cameras by strip club customers typically isn't for purposes of financial gain. Strong copyright law makes attempted 'for-profit' use of strip club pics / videos relatively difficult. Instead, I would imagine that in most cases it is a 'male ego' thing. However, even if the stealth photographer / poster doesn't personally profit from shooting and posting 'adult' pics / videos of dancers, those 'adult' pics / videos are nonetheless available online, and could be used by others for purposes which 'harm' the dancer. The most common future result will probably be 'outing' the past stripping activities of dancers to prospective straight job employers, to state professional licensing agencies, etc.

Ultimately, this is likely to lead to a situation where any girls who are considering exotic dancing are forced to adopt the same mindset which camgirls are already forced to adopt ... that doing so WILL result in the creation of 'adult' images / videos of themselves becoming available to a wide cross-section of people, from friends and family, to prospective future employers, to future state professional licensing agencies, to future dates / mates, etc. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this development may actually benefit 'serious, professional' dancers who don't care ( because they have little additional to lose ) if their exotic dancing activities have been outed ... because it may significantly reduce the number of competing 'part-time' dancers who are college students or graduates whose professional straight career opportunities could be compromised if / when their 'adult' industry work history is outed.

As you correctly point out, in the year or so since this thread was started, facial recognition technology has already spread to lots of well publicized 'private sector' uses ... from building security systems, to retailers cameras 'recognizing' a big spending customer walking into the store, to everyday people being able to match up images posted on social media sites. What isn't as well publicized, but is probably spreading just as quickly, is the use of facial recognition searches by prospective employer background check services, by state professional licensing agencies, etc.

In regard to questions involving legal rights of dancers and stealth strip club photographers versus 'expectations of privacy' or new 'revenge porn' laws, rather than repeat this here I'll refer you to this recent Stripping forum thread ...

miss.a.p1600
05-10-2015, 03:08 PM
I see what you are saying Melonie about viewing stripping and being outed like how cam girls view it in that it's inevitable.

Laws haven't caught up to technology but that doesn't mean we don't have rights worth fighting for. And I'm willing to protest lol!

If someone is going to film me while I'm performing naked or half naked then I'd rather them be turning a profit (so that I can get a cut of) than for free or worse for blackmail.

Now all this makes pulling a Kim Kardashian / leak a sex tape look more like a viable option. Who wants to get exploited in a strip club day in a day out by some pervs covertly recording you, cheapening your brand, and ruining potential vanilla career opportunities? When you can record scandalous one time video of yourself and sell it for hundreds of thousands and royalties / passive income. If you're going to be linked to adult industry then might as well get guaranteed money.

Either this or just doing private party stripping then because according to your post in that thread, private party strippers would be dancing in a home or private location where there would be an expectation of privacy.

slowpoke
05-10-2015, 04:47 PM
Customers might not want to be photographed or videoed in a club. That would provide incentives for a club to prohibit such activity.

miss.a.p1600
05-10-2015, 06:09 PM
Customers might not want to be photographed or videoed in a club. That would provide incentives for a club to prohibit such activity.

I dont think anybody wants to be recorded in the strip club (unless they know they are being filmed and are going to get compensated for people viewing that film). If I wanted to be on film id be in porn or on a webcam not in a strip club.

And this is Exactly why I said laws/recording in the club - is sexist. Owners would care if enough customers complained. Dancers complaining - from what has been said in this thread - probably would fall on deaf ears.

Yeah a married customer has his marriage on the line if caught (which he could easily find another wife) but dancers have their career on the line (which affects earning potential and money needed to survive) I'd bet it wont be easy finding work if you've been blackballed from vanilla careers due to working in adult industry even if its legal still huge stigma. This is why they should change the laws making strip clubs (at least private rooms) to have the expectation of privacy.