Warning to MFC premium members

[facialover]

I really don't understand what your problem is. Law and morality don't always go hand in hand.

The fact that MFC cares about the safety of its models beyond what is required by law is a good thing.

Perhaps you have a personal interest here considering this is the only thread you post in and you dont seem to drop this. Have you threatened to a model or something?

I think he is just a detail-oriented person who is genuinely interested in how this all fits together, not looking for a loophole. Legal minutiae may not be a popular interest but some people find precision gratifying. My take on his statement concerning legal vs moral was not that models should be afforded no protection beyond what is legally allowed but rather that their legal protections should be increased, so they don't have to rely on a site meeting its moral duties if they happen to feel like it.

 

[LTlurkerFTposter]

Perhaps you have a personal interest here considering this is the only thread you post in and you dont seem to drop this. Have you threatened to a model or something?

No. I have never threatened a model before, have never come remotely close to doing so, and I never will. I actually find it quite offensive that you're suggesting that the reason that I'm posting here is that I have a personal interest in finding some way to have legal justification for threatening a model.

I think he is just a detail-oriented person who is genuinely interested in how this all fits together, not looking for a loophole. Legal minutiae may not be a popular interest but some people find precision gratifying. My take on his statement concerning legal vs moral was not that models should be afforded no protection beyond what is legally allowed but rather that their legal protections should be increased, so they don't have to rely on a site meeting its moral duties if they happen to feel like it.

This. Thank you, facialover (I never thought I'd utter that sentence though, lol).

ETA: When I said that I find it worrying that models may not be protected by OSHA, I meant that, because if it's true that OSHA doesn't apply then mfc may have very few legal obligations to protect mfc models. Consequently, they can choose to be very selective in how they respond to model's concerns about their safety and privacy.

We caught a glimpse of this when Tilly mentioned that prior to her being a "veteran" model on the site, support was much more reluctant to adequately address problems that she was having with abusive members. This indicates that support is selective in how they address model's concerns, which they can easily get a way with if they aren't bound by many laws that require them to provide a safe working environment for models.

I wouldn't even say that it's an issue about the distinction between law and morality, since I doubt that morality is a decisive factor for mfc support (though maybe I'm wrong). Rather, the relevant consideration for mfc when they're determining whether to address a model's concerns about her safety is whether it's in their business interests to do so.

 

[Zoomer]

You may be interested in CCBill's Consumer Privacy Policy. I didn't check the other payment processors' sites, but I'd imagine they contain pretty much the same language.

The part about "CCBill will release data when we believe the release is appropriate to comply with the law, enforce our Agreement, and protect the contract rights of our Clients.CBill passes the following data to the owner/operator of the Web site from which you are purchasing services, or products utilizing CCBill's services" can mean pretty much anything.

Fairly sure CCBill will offer services to far more than just MFC - so bill payer's address is expected, as would name - due to the simple fact of likely sending items to the bill payers address on first purchase at least... and the vending site would need a record of who has bought/sold. These systems exist to prevent handing out your credit card details to any old Tom, Dick and Harry though.

The worrying thing I saw was "Username and password" - eh? I'm fairly sure I've used CCBill and not had to enter any username or password (checks, nope) so not relevant. But if it were for a CCBill account, that is not relevant information to be passed on whatsoever... and likely shaky ground if they were giving out your username/password which isn't relevant to the vending site. Fairly sure they'd be in trouble if true.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. The contract is between the vendor and CCBill - which is MFC and CCBill; not models. If MFC is really handing out members name's when requested by a model, then I think they're on shakey ground. Name one valid reason for doing so. If in the EU then the Data Protection Act would have definitely been contravened and MFC liable for a fine. I used to work in a bank, and believe it or not - when chasing down other bank's customers we'd have to send letters to another bank to forward onto their customers, as they would not be allowed under data protection laws to divulge the customers name/address.

Likewise storing personal information in an insecure way could/would lead to a breach of the DPA and ramifications, as is collecting personal data and then storing it in a country with a weaker data protection law. We already know that MFC doesn't encrypt passwords, so the chances of them storing your personal details in a method that can very easily be smashed is concerning.

But handing out members personal details, which were collected specifically for verifying payments and payment records, to models on request... that's a no no in the EU at least.

 

[Sevrin]

Anyway, that's irrelevant. The contract is between the vendor and CCBill - which is MFC and CCBill; not models. If MFC is really handing out members name's when requested by a model, then I think they're on shakey ground. Name one valid reason for doing so. If in the EU then the Data Protection Act would have definitely been contravened and MFC liable for a fine. I used to work in a bank, and believe it or not - when chasing down other bank's customers we'd have to send letters to another bank to forward onto their customers, as they would not be allowed under data protection laws to divulge the customers name/address.

MFC isn't in the EU, though, nor MFC does not commit itself absolutely to maintaining member privacy. Regulations governing banks are very different from those which apply to other enterprises, in any event.

More from the MFC wiki.

Release of Customer Data in Other Circumstances
Notwithstanding the foregoing, MyFreeCams reserves the right to disclose customer information when we, in our sole discretion, believe that it is reasonable to do so. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to the following:

1. To satisfy any legal obligation;
2. To identify, contact, bring legal action against, or collect payment from someone who may be violating our Terms & Conditions;
3. To investigate fraud or deceptive activity;
4. To maintain the security of our system(s), servers, datacenters, or properties;
5. To operate our services properly; and
6. To protect ourselves, our customers, and the general public. We specifically reserve the right to disclose any and all necessary information to law enforcement in the event of ongoing criminal activity involving our system, illegal use of our system, and/or active child exploitation / human trafficking investigations.

"Ongoing criminal activity involving our system" would definitely include harassment of models by members.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prevents MFC from willy-nilly providing the content of electronic communications it may have archived to third parties. The content of those communications is privileged, but the identity of members is not content.

 

[LTlurkerFTposter]

My thanks to both Severin and Zoomer for being willing to delve deep into the weeds when it comes to the issues under discussion. That's cool! Thanks guys (and/or girls).

It's interesting to learn more about the Data Protection Act (as it pertains to the EU) and the ECPA. This is neat stuff.

I should preface my comments with the usual disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. So take what I say with a grain of salt. But I'm inclined to think that one sort of "valid" (to use Zoomer's term) reason that mfc would need to get personal personal data from CCBill might reasonably include the case where a model's, or anyone else's, safety or well-being was clearly in danger (as supported by appropriate evidence in mfc's possession, presumably including chat logs and/or mfc mails). Whether this is a sort of "valid" reason that conforms with relevant laws is independent of what I'm inclined to think, though, and if there are any lawyers in the house I'd like to hear what you have to say. In any case, it's interesting to learn more about EU data protection laws. So thanks for bringing that up, Zoomer.

"Ongoing criminal activity involving our system" would definitely include harassment of models by members..

I agree completely. In my view, harassing models (or anyone else) on mfc, or in general (under a reasonable interpretation of the word "harassing"), especially when it threatens anyone's safety, should be considered a criminal activity. Whether it actually constitutes criminal activity is another question that I am unfortunately unqualified to answer.

However, I think that it may be important to consider the full text of the quote Severin provides. In the clause containing the phrase "ongoing criminal activity involving our system" it says

We specifically reserve the right to disclose any and all necessary information to law enforcement in the event of ongoing criminal activity involving our system, illegal use of our system, and/or active child exploitation / human trafficking investigations.

And this goes back to one of my original questions. Why is mfc providing RL names of members (in some "extreme" circumstances) directly to models, as opposed to law enforcement?

In previous posts I've already expressed my concerns about the efficacy of law enforcement in providing adequate protection for models when their personal safety is threatened, and I've stated that I'm skeptical that law enforcement is willing or able to protect individuals when they are subject to online harassment, even if it appears to threaten their personal safety. But really that criticism just points to a problem with the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of law enforcement with dealing with these problems, as opposed to the general principle in question. As a result, all the criticism really does is provide support for a strong push to change the way that online harassment is prosecuted under the law (which I personally think is very much needed).

I should admit that there's a fairly obvious response to the concern that I raised when I referred to the quote above. The response is that it's merely a particular case of the following more general policy (that Severin so helpfully quoted):

MyFreeCams reserves the right to disclose customer information when we, in our sole discretion, believe that it is reasonable to do so.

If this takes precedence over the previous quote, then (as I take it) that means that mfc can disclose customer information to whomever they want whenever they believe that is "reasonable" to do so. For the purposes of our present discussion, the circumstances under which they consider to be "reasonable" are (but of course not limited to) probably #1 and #6. I've attempted to address #1 in previous posts, particularly with respect to my questions about whether mfc models are protected under OSHA (and I'd still be curious to hear what models have to say about that, especially as it most directly impacts them). With respect to #6, I'm not sure whether it specifically limits the disclosure of personal information to law enforcement. My reading of it is that if it does not, then it might permit mfc to disclose personal information to anyone (law enforcement, models, the NYTimes, my Aunt Jude, etc...) if they believe it is "reasonable" to do so. I'm not sure if that's what they intend when they say that, though.

 

[Sevrin]

And this goes back to one of my original questions. Why is mfc providing RL names of members (in some "extreme" circumstances) directly to models, as opposed to law enforcement?

The statement that they will specifically provide information to law enforcement does not limit them to providing information only to law enforcement.

Even if MFC did not publish those disclaimers as they have, how many members whose identity is communicated to third parties because of their own actions as verified by examining MFC's archives will attempt to institute proceedings against MFC for providing that information, if that means that their offending behaviour becomes a matter of public record in the process?

 

[LTlurkerFTposter]

The statement that they will specifically provide information to law enforcement does not limit them to providing information only to law enforcement.

Yeah, I think you're totally right, Sevrin. That seems like the correct reading. I agree! (I think that's essentially what I called the "obvious response". Maybe I should have instead called it the "correct" response, lol.)

Even if MFC did not publish those disclaimers as they have, how many members whose identity is communicated to third parties because of their own actions as verified by examining MFC's archives will attempt to institute proceedings against MFC for providing that information, if that means that their offending behaviour becomes a matter of public record in the process?

Sometimes I have a hard time interpreting nested conditionals, so I'm not entirely sure how to respond. Sooo, how many members? I'll take a wild guess and say 6. Yeah, 6. That's my answer.

Perhaps you have a personal interest here considering this is the only thread you post in and you dont seem to drop this.

Ok, well, maybe I'll drop it, at least for now. Not because you implicitly suggested that I should, supermila, but because some participants in the discussion were willing to engage in a constructive dialogue that helped me to answer the initial questions I asked. My sincere thanks to all of you where were willing to put up with my nitpicking and help me figure out what the heck is going on here!

Despite the unfortunately negative and adversarial tone that this thread has sometimes taken, I think that it was actually fairly productive. I learned at least two things:

1. If mfc has evidence that a member has harassed, threatened, or is behaving in a way that may compromise the safety of an mfc model, then mfc may provide said model with the member's real name, for her to do with as she sees fit.

I think that this information is useful for both models and members, and it was something that i was unaware of prior to Tilly's post. So thanks to Tilly for bringing it up!

- This information is helpful for models, because it means that you know that if a member is harassing you or threatening you then you it's possible for you to obtain the offending member's real name from mfc support (assuming that you're considered sufficiently "veteran" by mfc support, which really probably just means that it's in the interest of their bottom line to work with you, as opposed to simply ignoring you). What you do with that name is then presumably entirely up to you, but if used wisely it could potentially go a long way towards ensuring your safety if you're being stalked or harassed irl.

- This information is also helpful for members, because it makes it very clear that if you're a douchebag to a model, and in particular if you're extra-douchey enough to threaten her safety, then you should expect that the model can not only permaban all of your accounts from her room, but that she may also possibly acquire your real name, to do with as she sees fit. And, contrary to what some posters in this thread have said, having someone's real name, especially in conjunction with evidence that they've frequented a site like mfc, could potentially cause severe problems for their personal or professional lives. It's not something to take lightly, in my view, since (unfortunately) most countries unjustly stigmatize sex workers and clients who pay for services of a sexual nature (which mfc and mfc models typically provide).

2. The workplace safety protections afforded to employees under OSHA most likely do not apply to mfc models, since they are considered self-employed independent contractors.

I'm still not 100% convinced that this claim is true, but I think there's a good chance that it is. If it is, then I should think that it would be of interest to models (at least those in the US), since it means that mfc has very few (if any) legal obligations to provide them with a safe work environment. As such, if you're harassed, threatened, or if your personal safety is in any way threatened as a part of your doing business on mfc, then to the extent that you can legally compel mfc to do anything about it to protect you, it would have to be done outside the context of protections afforded to "normal" employees under OSHA. Essentially it means that you're largely responsible for your own safety and well-being, and that you shouldn't rely on mfc to protect you. (Note: some of what I've said here may be void if there are other legal protections that are relevant, but when I asked about it in this thread the only response I got was OSHA.)


Anyways, that's all I've got for now. Apologies to anyone that I inadvertently offended by being extra nitpicky or pedantic. I just thought that Tilly's post raised some very interesting questions about the balance between member privacy and model safety.

 

[Sevrin]

On the topic of employees vs independent contractors, I came across this article today. Based on the criteria used to make the determination, I think it's pretty obvious that cam models fall squarely in the contractor camp, unless of course they work for a physical studio, but that's still solely concerns their relationship with the studio rather than the cam site.

Uber and Strippers Have Something in Common

You might not think that Uber and strippers belong in the same sentence. But both are deeply interested in the great legal question of the sharing economy: who’s an independent contractor and who’s an employee?

Now a federal appeals court has weighed in with a ruling that strippers are employees. Its reasoning provides an important window into the legal question on which a whole business model depends.

The case arose from a lawsuit brought by exotic dancers working in several Maryland clubs. The dancers weren’t paid salaries by the clubs, which insisted that they were independent contractors. Starting in September, 2011, the clubs made the dancers sign an agreement saying that’s what they were.

 

[Moffle]

Just to dig up an old post on this thread:

MFC seems to take the privacy of the models seriously, and I don't have any reason to believe they are careless with member information

Sadly they are hugely careless. Try using the password reminder... it comes back with a plain text version of your password. This is indicative of terrible and quite dangerous security policies.

 

[MFCuser]

All the armchair lawyering in this thread makes my head hurt. Their privacy policy was written by someone with more subject knowledge than anyone in this thread, I.e. An attorney. They are probably ok with what they are doing.

Using Mfc is a privilege not a right. Don't be a douchecanoe and you won't have to worry about it. Now go tip your favorite model and see some boobs.

 

[Zoomer]

I think you're all missing several key points

1) A criminal activity is one defined by law and tested by law. It isn't MFC's place to determine a criminal activity - they have no jurisdiction, are neither a judge nor executioner. They have to go to the courts for civil matters, or report to a law enforcement for criminal activity.

Not paying (or withdrawing payments falsely) is a civil matter; it can be criminal if it's proven to be criminal. However, it is not MFC's place to hand out member details because they're harrassing a model. It's not the models position to ask for said details.

As they should - they file a complaint with the legal authorities and then it'll go from there - requests etc. If it's a civil matter, then they'll need a court order to release the details and can "serve" or whatever you call it there

A model cannot just claim something and have personal details released... and if MFC is doing that then it's diabolical; what if a members claims harrassment from a model? Should they release her details to the member? If you think no, then it's hypocritical to think it shouldn't work both ways

2) MFC's wiki is almost irrelevant - they do not define, nor superceed, laws; they're not above the law. What they are doing is outlining when and where they may release or otherwise utilise personal information - and there's nothing wrong with them outlining that. If they've advised what will happen with information imparted, then you'd struggle to have a come back (so advising how the data is processed is fair enough... but if it's going to contravene a law, then nope).

As for CCBill MFC don't need to ask anything - they get given certain information. Now whether they get all the information CCBill outlined, or whether they just get a transaction code (which is what I assumed would have happened), I do not know. But again, they are not entitled to start handing out that data on whims or (if in the EU - which they're not) for using the information for other than the specific reason it was collected.

Bottom line - there are privacy laws in most countries (including the US, just not quite the same as the UK, but I'd be surprised if it's not broadly similar) which they'll have to adhere to. The extent of how protective those laws are does make a difference. But MFC can't just do whatever it likes and give out information to whomever it likes; that'd be a violation.

Of course, there may be disclaimers and other matters during sign up that outline what information of yours they do share... it happens. Sadly by signing up then you're giving complicit acceptance of those terms (refer back to not being able to release personal details without the persons consent).

And, contrary to what some posters in this thread have said, having someone's real name, especially in conjunction with evidence that they've frequented a site like mfc, could potentially cause severe problems for their personal or professional lives. It's not something to take lightly, in my view, since (unfortunately) most countries unjustly stigmatize sex workers and clients who pay for services of a sexual nature (which mfc and mfc models typically provide).

This is just so wrong (morally). The correct and proper course of action is to file a complaint with the police, or bring a civil matter to the courts.