What happens now with FOSTA?

[BufordT]

this link will put you on the right path to the reference, it is based on google searches by women worldwide.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/g...t-women-is-more-popular-among-women-than-men/
This type of metadata will be much harder to collect post FOSTA when socially unacceptable searches lead nowhere or to the wrong places. This is what I dislike most about such laws, I'd like to know what drives socially unacceptable to hide in the dark web rather than force harmless acts to hide there.

My point is it comes from bad assumptions, that the legislation long term will be pretty much useless for what it sets out to achieve. I understand its point, but sex workers don't think it will work and may even make it riskier for them. I would assume the risks to them would be similar to the Nordic Model of chasing the customer/ reducing business.
The FOSTA component is far more interesting, short term pain to the sex industry for not much result in how it works. Customers like myself may find it more expensive and there should be less access to more interesting free content.
For content providers it will rush what is already slowly happening, more self produced and one on one traded content. Porn sites better move fast to decide on their moderation habits if they want to remain a 3rd party in the game connecting content providers to services/ customer searches for that content.

The vanilla sex industry, such as camming should be fine after the cowards afraid of the industry but wanting to profit from it run away. What is sad is that so much of the extreme content will be inaccessible to those with an interest in it to discover. So not a good thing.

That is an interesting link, thanks. However there is still a difference between interest in depictions of rough sex and BDSM and actual exploitation and violence. I agree with you for the most part. The law(s) will not accomplish their stated objective. It will likely put a lot of pain on the legitmate sex worker industry however. Considering the sources of support for those bills that could very well be its real intent. A lot of its impact will depend on how it is interpreted and how vigorously it is enforced. The thing about any platform that connects users (and this is not only about porn) is it just became a huge risk. So even if you move towards a more peer-to-peer model the ability to connect just got a lot more difficult. Shutting down BackPage is something you would expect from this. The FCP problem is more of an example how the law could have less obvious consequences and impacts that are global and not just in the U.S. As it is now it will do little if nothing to stop real violence and trafficking. It very likely will hurt those who work in the industry legitimately. Basically it is censorship. Besides that being just wrong driving anything underground always creates worse problems than it solves.

 

[AmberCutie]

@AmberCutie, the “Models: Advertise Here” section may fall subject to this, particularly any date raffles advertised, or even the latest post by @CorinneCooper about her going back to a brothel.

I've started working on removing this sort of stuff and have imposed new requirements on the advertise here section.

 

[Ambers Troll]

I've started working on removing this sort of stuff and have imposed new requirements on the advertise here section.

Good plan in the interest of avoiding extra attention for those models putting themselves at risk.

For ACF as a forum, your 1st amendment rights and lack of profit taking would easily fall outside of anything FOSTA has added; if the models were paying you to advertise here, that would be different.

Will ACF be considering any kind of censorship of fetish topics, old threads (i.e. dating a cam girl), or say links to certain sites? For those of us from outside the US, you'll have to give us some warning on links/ topics being removed as we won't be blocked to them from were we are: Not that there would be too many off limit topics anyway.
Until then, we will just have to be sensitive to the fact that ACF may require a little extra moderation on sensitive topics until you can get a clear picture on what is socially appropriate for a US audience on the public part of this forum.

 

[AmberCutie]

Good plan in the interest of avoiding extra attention for those models putting themselves at risk.

For ACF as a forum, your 1st amendment rights and lack of profit taking would easily fall outside of anything FOSTA has added; if the models were paying you to advertise here, that would be different.

Will ACF be considering any kind of censorship of fetish topics, old threads (i.e. dating a cam girl), or say links to certain sites? For those of us from outside the US, you'll have to give us some warning on links/ topics being removed as we won't be blocked to them from were we are: Not that there would be too many off limit topics anyway.
Until then, we will just have to be sensitive to the fact that ACF may require a little extra moderation on sensitive topics until you can get a clear picture on what is socially appropriate for a US audience on the public part of this forum.

I don't plan to censor discussion OF topics, just advertising that models are OFFERING services in those topics.

Overall I think this is actually even a step beyond what I even needed to consider, this lowly cam girl forum will not be a target for FOSTA crap, but since it was an easy move I may as well clean up what was already here that people were questioning.

 

[Guy]

Heads Up!

 

[AmberCutie]

Heads Up!

That text has been in the TOS since 2016, apparently. So it's not a change due to FOSTA.

 

[Ambers Troll]

Ginger Banks on the issue (and other issues such as sex worker deaths surrounding sex worker stigma). https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfilter...s-001723120.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=tw

 

[Smores]

I'm getting a little off topic here, but hopefully this helps everyone on here - does this mean the US can tap into US citizen's data whenever they want, too? I want to make sure I'm understanding this 100%

This is the direction that things are going. To me this is an obscene violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights. In effect US agencies can now spy on US persons by working with foreign governments that have no Bill of Rights and collecting the data outside the US. Governments love all of this. They are learning how to develop workarounds to the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get whatever they want using various sleazy tricks.

It is hard for an individual user to fight this trend, but e-mail services like Protonmail do help, particularly if both sides of the conversation have Protonmail accounts. The reason is that the e-mail database is encrypted in such a way that Protonmail itself cannot read the messages. If any foreign government tries to hack or seize that data, Protonmail can only give them encrypted data.

Anything that does not use an architecture like that: just assume that the employees of the service and every government agency out there is reading everything you write, using automated tools looking for keywords. It may not be to that point yet but it is getting there fast. With FOSTA/SESTA, at some point many providers like Google may start cancelling accounts right and left simply because of keyword scores against your "private" messages.

 

[Smores]

Supposedly Microsoft implemented some kind of end-to-end encryption in Skype. According to this article, you need to turn that feature on and it is not the default. The article talks about a "Compose" menu and initiating a "New Private Conversation" from that. I do not see either the menu option or the menu choice embedded anywhere else in the Skype for Windows user interface. Can someone tell me if this feature has been implemented on Windows yet, and how do we find it?

I assume that any model using Skype for privates will want to have this feature enabled at all times, otherwise Microsoft presumably now may be spot auditing actual content of conversations and potentially invoking their new user agreement as a reason to cancel an account.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

Supposedly Microsoft implemented some kind of end-to-end encryption in Skype. According to this article, you need to turn that feature on and it is not the default. The article talks about a "Compose" menu and initiating a "New Private Conversation" from that. I do not see either the menu option or the menu choice embedded anywhere else in the Skype for Windows user interface. Can someone tell me if this feature has been implemented on Windows yet, and how do we find it?

I assume that any model using Skype for privates will want to have this feature enabled at all times, otherwise Microsoft presumably now may be spot auditing actual content of conversations and potentially invoking their new user agreement as a reason to cancel an account.

While the encryption is a good thing I don't think it is going to have any significant effect on models getting banned from Skype for lewd behavior, because the only instance models will be banned is when a user has reported them in which case the encryption won't matter. Because of the new GDPR regulations that is in effect in the EU Skype or any other company can't collect personal data on users with out being able to justify the need to do so. Monitoring and storing all users Skype calls to catch one exposed breast is not a good enough reason to do so. If Skype are found to be in breach of GDPR they can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 Million (whichever is greater). Also Skype's lawyers are currently trying to convince EU judges that Skype shouldn't be considered to be a telephone company in a case where Belgian authorities were trying to force Skype to wiretap communications of a criminal organization, which they couldn't do because then they would break wiretapping Laws in Luxembourg where they have their headquarters. So for Skype to be able to monitor communications legally the wiretapping would have to be authorized by Luxembourgian authorities and for that to happen something that is criminal in Luxembourg would have to take place.

 

[Smores]

While the encryption is a good thing I don't think it is going to have any significant effect on models getting banned from Skype for lewd behavior, because the only instance models will be banned is when a user has reported them in which case the encryption won't matter.

I think this depends on how they implement their policy. If someone accuses you of something, this is just their word against yours. No responsible company is going to ban you only because some individual accused you of something. But if there is an accusation, that might be probable cause to investigate you in more detail. And if your streams are not encrypted they can then just look at one and see clear proof that you violated some policy. If all your streams are encrypted, then it becomes harder for them to prove.

My guess is that social media companies do not want to ban their members, unless there is clear proof that their actions violate a policy. So now the model's job would be to make it very hard for them to see that she is violating any policy. That might be really tough to do if she is calling out Skype shows on public pages, so there are more elements at play than just encrypting the stream.

 

[Smores]

What are the reasons that models do not use encrypted messenger tools like Signal as a replacement for Skype? I do not know if you can use it with any webcam on a desktop computer, but I am assuming probably you can.

You would need a separate phone number for Signal, which should be easy to obtain using any VOIP service like Burner. That Burner phone could be kept as a long-term dedicated video webchat number, or you could change it every few months.

Signal is a small team in San Francisco and not VC funded. They are generally regarded as the most secure messenger platform. They are similar to Whatsapp but without the overhang of Facebook and all of Facebook's infrastructure for figuring out who you are and without the potential for Facebook shutting down multiple accounts not just Whatsapp. Of course you have to wonder if government in the current pro-censorship environment will allow Signal to survive, but in the short term why can this not act as a tool for models to do video chats and circumvent all of the new rules that threatening Skype chats?

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

I think this depends on how they implement their policy. If someone accuses you of something, this is just their word against yours. No responsible company is going to ban you only because some individual accused you of something. But if there is an accusation, that might be probable cause to investigate you in more detail. And if your streams are not encrypted they can then just look at one and see clear proof that you violated some policy. If all your streams are encrypted, then it becomes harder for them to prove.

My guess is that social media companies do not want to ban their members, unless there is clear proof that their actions violate a policy. So now the model's job would be to make it very hard for them to see that she is violating any policy. That might be really tough to do if she is calling out Skype shows on public pages, so there are more elements at play than just encrypting the stream.

The individual could have recorded the thing and Skype could have found out that it actually happened that way, but even that could be illegal if they live in a country or state where you need two party consent for recordings. The point is it doesn't matter if the stream is encrypted or not company policy or a TOS can not negotiate away privacy regulation such as the GDPR or wiretapping laws. Sending naked images or video streams are not illegal in the EU, therefore a Skype would never be authorized to wiretap a conversation between two parties that they are not active in. If the model is selling Skype shows on places that are accessible to the public she would only have to not reveal her Skype name on those pages to get away, because realistically Skype is not going to buy Skype shows from models to find out what account is breaking the TOS.

 

[Smores]

The individual could have recorded the thing and Skype could have found out that it actually happened that way, but even that could be illegal if they live in a country or state where you need two party consent for recordings.

Right, so it is more complicated than the person who is accusing you just sending Skype a video. I suppose that also threatens the sender's Skype account as well. It is probably not the most common case.

The point is it doesn't matter if the stream is encrypted or not company policy or a TOS can not negotiate away privacy regulation such as the GDPR or wiretapping laws. Sending naked images or video streams are not illegal in the EU, therefore a Skype would never be authorized to wiretap a conversation between two parties that they are not active in.

But this confuses due process in a court of law with a social media / Internet company's ability to just arbitrarily terminate your account for any reason they feel violates their policy. Social media companies do not need to exercise due process when making claims against you. They can do a pretty wide range of very unfair things to investigate you, then they can terminate your account just to avoid a perceived risk, without ever really proving you did anything. That is what makes this FOSTA/SESTA so horrible. By insinuating risk to the management of the social media company, FOSTA/SESTA is recruiting private companies to censor content without any due process or real proof. It's like government has perfected the perfect anti-constitutional law, in which it gets private companies to do its censorship for government.

 

[Lintilla]

What are the reasons that models do not use encrypted messenger tools like Signal as a replacement for Skype? I do not know if you can use it with any webcam on a desktop computer, but I am assuming probably you can.

You would need a separate phone number for Signal, which should be easy to obtain using any VOIP service like Burner. That Burner phone could be kept as a long-term dedicated video webchat number, or you could change it every few months.

Signal is a small team in San Francisco and not VC funded. They are generally regarded as the most secure messenger platform. They are similar to Whatsapp but without the overhang of Facebook and all of Facebook's infrastructure for figuring out who you are and without the potential for Facebook shutting down multiple accounts not just Whatsapp. Of course you have to wonder if government in the current pro-censorship environment will allow Signal to survive, but in the short term why can this not act as a tool for models to do video chats and circumvent all of the new rules that threatening Skype chats?

I am and always have been very privacy-minded, and lots of my guys are very concerned about digital privacy! I've used numerous communication tools, always with privacy in mind. My main issues are that no one can agree on a particular protocol or app anymore, so I need to be using a dozen different apps to maintain existing connections, and that having things so fragmented means it's more difficult to make new connections.

I rarely use Signal at all, so that's funny.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

But this confuses due process in a court of law with a social media / Internet company's ability to just arbitrarily terminate your account for any reason they feel violates their policy. Social media companies do not need to exercise due process when making claims against you. They can do a pretty wide range of very unfair things to investigate you, then they can terminate your account just to avoid a perceived risk, without ever really proving you did anything. That is what makes this FOSTA/SESTA so horrible. By insinuating risk to the management of the social media company, FOSTA/SESTA is recruiting private companies to censor content without any due process or real proof. It's like government has perfected the perfect anti-constitutional law, in which it gets private companies to do its censorship for government.

The difference here is that Skype, depending on the final verdict in that other case I mentioned earlier, might be a telephony company which means that it has to follow different laws than a social media platform such as Facebook or Twitter. Also Skype has its headquarters in Luxembourg which means they are subject to the laws of Luxembourg and it is a EU country so they have to comply with the EU regulations.

 

[Smores]

I am and always have been very privacy-minded, and lots of my guys are very concerned about digital privacy! I've used numerous communication tools, always with privacy in mind. My main issues are that no one can agree on a particular protocol or app anymore, so I need to be using a dozen different apps to maintain existing connections, and that having things so fragmented means it's more difficult to make new connections.

I rarely use Signal at all, so that's funny.

You should read about it. Signal is the protocol that Whatsapp is using, and the new Skype "Private Conversations" is also based on Signal! I have a few Open Source community friends who have looked at the Signal code and basically drool over it. For security geeks, it largely regarded as very secure and very well implemented.

What Signal does not have is hundreds of millions of dollars of professional investor money, so they are not stealing market share from anyone. They are a low profile company that has a niche in secure messaging, and typically the people who use them are technologists (like us) who read comments about security by other technologists. But the fact that really big companies like Facebook and Microsoft "borrowed" the Signal open source code tells me that there is something real going on there and it might have staying power.

I have not used Signal very much yet (I just found out about it), but the fact that there is NOT a huge social media site sitting around the edges of Signal's application makes me wonder if it is not a better tool for a webcam worker than Skype. Skype will have more features, but against that there is the risk associated with Microsoft's 1000 lawyers all trying to figure out how to reduce Microsoft's legal exposures under FOSTA/SESTA....