OPSEC. Operattional Security

[Mross86]

What if you take a selfie and then screenshot it?

That's what I've been doing in the past (besides screenshotting it, I'd save it with lower resolution) and I though it was an effective method but apparently with the newer technology and AI search utilities that's no longer 100% foolproof. I figure it's better than nothing and more convenient than using this Fawkes tool though. You'd think by now, given all these privacy concerns etc; someone would have come up with mobile apps that does this "image scrambling" in a user friendly manner.

[Uboatct]

There is this Fawkes thing I found. Doesn't seem to be very practical though and no mobile apps as far as I know. It seems to be efficient, but you need to install it on actual computer and then run your photos through it to turn them into unrecognizable to AI and other image search utilities. I haven't tried it yet, but I think I will. Apparently doesn't alter the image much to human eyes, but only to electronic search utilities and prevents facial recognition or reverse image.

https://sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu/fawkes/

What if you take a selfie and then screenshot it?

[Mross86]

Is there any way to safely provide a photo, partial photo or screenshot to make this work? Or not really?

There is this Fawkes thing I found. Doesn't seem to be very practical though and no mobile apps as far as I know. It seems to be efficient, but you need to install it on actual computer and then run your photos through it to turn them into unrecognizable to AI and other image search utilities. I haven't tried it yet, but I think I will. Apparently doesn't alter the image much to human eyes, but only to electronic search utilities and prevents facial recognition or reverse image.

https://sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu/fawkes/

[Uboatct]

I'm old enough to remember the good old days and to be honest, even with all the convenience we have at our disposal, prefer them over what we have today. Agree with you 100% and feel like the digital footprint we are leaving behind us when interacting with the providers will come back and bite us in the ass at some point. There is not much else (besides what I'm already doing) to do about it so I guess I just try not to think about it constantly.

Is there any way to safely provide a photo, partial photo or screenshot to make this work? Or not really?

[Mross86]

Once upon a time, mongers found providers from classified ads in newspapers or in local free publications like the News and Review. Providers were clever enough to write their ads with suggestive, but not explicit language. In that pre-internet age, everything was a crapshoot and it was incumbent on mongers to build a rotation of decent regulars through trial and error. The massage scene was easier, because the hallmarks of an AMP at which extras were available were similar to what they are today. Without reliable reviews or forums like this one, however, it was still trial and error.

For providers, verification consisted of getting a vibe for the client during a voice call (yes, voice call) to set up the appointment. That was followed by checking out the client through a window or door peephole when they arrived. I recall more than one provider asking me to park in a certain spot so they could make an assessment as I exited my car. Independent providers needed to be resourceful and have street smarts + good intuition and instincts. In short, the hobby (on both sides) was not well-suited to those who were lazy, complacent, or stupid.

Fast-forward to today's scene, in which finding a provider (at least in the DMV and major areas) is literally like throwing a line in a pond that's been stocked full of fish! And the level of research that current tools make possible (image search, phone search, review sites, and forums) really leaves mongers without any excuses. The biggest problem (IMO) is that those very tools make it easier to be lazy (on both sides). Also, since the advent of the internet-facilitated hobby, many (most?) providers have become lazier in the sense that they look at what other providers are doing and copy them in whole or in part. That's one reason why (again, IMO) pricing has become more standardized, at least at the lower end, and why verification requirements have become more stringent. Providers see others requiring photos, video calls, LinkedIn profile info, and other PII, and that gets copied because providers tell themselves that their safety is worth it.

Safety is a two-way street, however, and mongers also take risks, especially those who are married, in a serious relationship, and-or have sensitive or public jobs. Since the internet is forever, any PII that's sent by a monger passes out of his control forever and, for all intents and purposes, remains a risk factor forever. While a single PII interaction may get buried over the course of time, it's still there if someone decides to dig for it. Unfortunately for mongers, there's really no way to put the PII-image-verification genie back in the bottle. As long as some mongers cluelessly comply, those who are OPSEC-conscious can only adapt and overcome. In order to do that, mongers need to think with the big head and maintain discipline. Which means no PII or image, ever. If that's not acceptable to the provider, move on to the next fish. That's easier for those of us who cut our hobby-teeth in the old era and harder for those who have only known the internet age. Harder, yes, but this is the way.

P.S. Don't even get me started on agencies! Old era: Call booker; Show up at scheduled time and place; Do the deed; Leave; Call and thank the booker for a good time (or complain if it was a bad time). New era: Send booker an SF-86 and hope that satisfies them. Uh, not just no, but f*ck no!

I'm old enough to remember the good old days and to be honest, even with all the convenience we have at our disposal, prefer them over what we have today. Agree with you 100% and feel like the digital footprint we are leaving behind us when interacting with the providers will come back and bite us in the ass at some point. There is not much else (besides what I'm already doing) to do about it so I guess I just try not to think about it constantly.

[JmSuttr]

Once upon a time, mongers found providers from classified ads in newspapers or in local free publications like the News and Review. Providers were clever enough to write their ads with suggestive, but not explicit language. In that pre-internet age, everything was a crapshoot and it was incumbent on mongers to build a rotation of decent regulars through trial and error. The massage scene was easier, because the hallmarks of an AMP at which extras were available were similar to what they are today. Without reliable reviews or forums like this one, however, it was still trial and error.

For providers, verification consisted of getting a vibe for the client during a voice call (yes, voice call) to set up the appointment. That was followed by checking out the client through a window or door peephole when they arrived. I recall more than one provider asking me to park in a certain spot so they could make an assessment as I exited my car. Independent providers needed to be resourceful and have street smarts + good intuition and instincts. In short, the hobby (on both sides) was not well-suited to those who were lazy, complacent, or stupid.

Fast-forward to today's scene, in which finding a provider (at least in the DMV and major areas) is literally like throwing a line in a pond that's been stocked full of fish! And the level of research that current tools make possible (image search, phone search, review sites, and forums) really leaves mongers without any excuses. The biggest problem (IMO) is that those very tools make it easier to be lazy (on both sides). Also, since the advent of the internet-facilitated hobby, many (most?) providers have become lazier in the sense that they look at what other providers are doing and copy them in whole or in part. That's one reason why (again, IMO) pricing has become more standardized, at least at the lower end, and why verification requirements have become more stringent. Providers see others requiring photos, video calls, LinkedIn profile info, and other PII, and that gets copied because providers tell themselves that their safety is worth it.

Safety is a two-way street, however, and mongers also take risks, especially those who are married, in a serious relationship, and-or have sensitive or public jobs. Since the internet is forever, any PII that's sent by a monger passes out of his control forever and, for all intents and purposes, remains a risk factor forever. While a single PII interaction may get buried over the course of time, it's still there if someone decides to dig for it. Unfortunately for mongers, there's really no way to put the PII-image-verification genie back in the bottle. As long as some mongers cluelessly comply, those who are OPSEC-conscious can only adapt and overcome. In order to do that, mongers need to think with the big head and maintain discipline. Which means no PII or image, ever. If that's not acceptable to the provider, move on to the next fish. That's easier for those of us who cut our hobby-teeth in the old era and harder for those who have only known the internet age. Harder, yes, but this is the way.

P.S. Don't even get me started on agencies! Old era: Call booker; Show up at scheduled time and place; Do the deed; Leave; Call and thank the booker for a good time (or complain if it was a bad time). New era: Send booker an SF-86 and hope that satisfies them. Uh, not just no, but f*ck no!

[Flipper69]

But what does the provider get out of this? Is it their best attempt to screen dangerous people, trying to see if this person looks like someone dangerous? Seems weak but I will never deny the value of instinct and maybe it's the best thing they have to go on in the circumstances.

Is it to create a digital forensics trail for every person they see (via screenshots etc) in case they are physically harmed?

Is it just to answer the question, does this guy look like someone I feel like having sex with?

This girl has been reviewed and I am assuming for the sake of this conversation that she is legit and not scamming.

Unless you are 100% sure you have no photos out there tied to your personal info, I'd refuse it. Thatvare apps that could easily match your selfie to any of those photos and reveal your identity.

[SlyFrog]

There was a really hot Thai girl that went by Tiffany, that I saw a few times. She made me do photo verification on more then one occasion. It was because she had an ex boyfriend that was trying to track her. She showed me pictures of her face after he beat the hell out of her. It could be something like that. Also might be that they want to see your race, or make sure that you are not a horny teenager.

Could be any of them. If you not comfy with doing it, just find another provider that tickles your fancy and doesn't require video verification.

I've done ft a few times only one time I saw my screen flash like a pic was being taken (iPhone has a feature during FT where your screen flashes if the other person takes a pic) and nothing has happened to me since then. The others were chill they wanted to see who I was and I them. I joked with each one besides the pic snapper and all those dreams were fun. Be safe as always.

[CollegeParkBoy]

But what does the provider get out of this? Is it their best attempt to screen dangerous people, trying to see if this person looks like someone dangerous? Seems weak but I will never deny the value of instinct and maybe it's the best thing they have to go on in the circumstances.

Is it to create a digital forensics trail for every person they see (via screenshots etc) in case they are physically harmed?

Is it just to answer the question, does this guy look like someone I feel like having sex with?

This girl has been reviewed and I am assuming for the sake of this conversation that she is legit and not scamming.

Could be any of them. If you not comfy with doing it, just find another provider that tickles your fancy and doesn't require video verification.

I've done ft a few times only one time I saw my screen flash like a pic was being taken (iPhone has a feature during FT where your screen flashes if the other person takes a pic) and nothing has happened to me since then. The others were chill they wanted to see who I was and I them. I joked with each one besides the pic snapper and all those dreams were fun. Be safe as always.

[RogerOver]

I recommend you take one of the photos you usually supply to POTs and run it through the 3 main sites. Once it finds the real you, you can put in a request to the site to delete your search results.

Also keep in mind, the girl not only needs to find your pic online by facial rec, she needs to pay the fee for facial rec to get to the actual page w / your pic.

Could do that, but there's no guarantee that site won't eventually put it back up. I've had pretty good luck with just a meet and greet, or telling the girls I'm super easy to get rid of if they think I'm ugly.

[JSenti]

But what does the provider get out of this? Is it their best attempt to screen dangerous people, trying to see if this person looks like someone dangerous? Seems weak but I will never deny the value of instinct and maybe it's the best thing they have to go on in the circumstances.

Is it to create a digital forensics trail for every person they see (via screenshots etc) in case they are physically harmed?

Is it just to answer the question, does this guy look like someone I feel like having sex with?

This girl has been reviewed and I am assuming for the sake of this conversation that she is legit and not scamming.

[CollegeParkBoy]

One noteworthy thing about the DMV is the large number of people who possess some level of security clearance. With most (all?) federal agencies currently doing, or moving toward, continuous vetting, I wonder if the information from Flock cameras might come into play at some point? Whether or not it becomes a routine thing would probably depend on cost. But, with the increasing use of AI tools, it wouldn't surprise me to see it used in certain situations. I'm not an expert but, from information I've read, with the right data points in a query it can essentially assemble a map and timeline of a person's movements and routines.

Also, include federal contractors along with federal agencies. Just another "Big Brother" scenario to consider. Damn!

I'm pretty sure they already know what you're (and mongers) doing regardless. Flock cameras have been around way before they just weren't called that. And with the whole spying through your phone stuff I'm betting they know what is going on out here. Whether they decide to fully pursue is another question.

[FarFarAway]

Personally, I won't do it. As you mentioned, they can record or get a snapshot of your face, and run it through an image search engine. Personally, I've worked in a field where I did a lot of public speaking. I can plug my picture into those search engines and it will pop out with my real pic, name, and all the goodies.

I suppose it all depends on your own risk profile and tolerance.

I recommend you take one of the photos you usually supply to POTs and run it through the 3 main sites. Once it finds the real you, you can put in a request to the site to delete your search results.

Also keep in mind, the girl not only needs to find your pic online by facial rec, she needs to pay the fee for facial rec to get to the actual page w / your pic.

[RogerOver]

I had an indie girl ask to video verify with me. That was the only verification she requested. I had already told her my age, race, etc. I declined but the more I thought about it, the more curious I became.

I understand why as customers we would want to video verify the provider, because of how often they lie about their looks, age, etc. Or we could be walking into a setup.

But what would a provider gain from a video verification? Is it purely to look at your face and decide if she feels like getting intimate with you?

Is it so she can grab a screenshot of your face in case something winds up happening to her, she has a picture of you on her phone?

Is it for some other reasons I haven't thought of?

I am not inclined to do it because it seems like it could be used against you in a bust or even just the threat of blackmail.

What are your opinions on this? If you're someone like me who won't send IDs, will you video verify? Why or why not?

Personally, I won't do it. As you mentioned, they can record or get a snapshot of your face, and run it through an image search engine. Personally, I've worked in a field where I did a lot of public speaking. I can plug my picture into those search engines and it will pop out with my real pic, name, and all the goodies.

I suppose it all depends on your own risk profile and tolerance.

[JSenti]

I had an indie girl ask to video verify with me. That was the only verification she requested. I had already told her my age, race, etc. I declined but the more I thought about it, the more curious I became.

I understand why as customers we would want to video verify the provider, because of how often they lie about their looks, age, etc. Or we could be walking into a setup.

But what would a provider gain from a video verification? Is it purely to look at your face and decide if she feels like getting intimate with you?

Is it so she can grab a screenshot of your face in case something winds up happening to her, she has a picture of you on her phone?

Is it for some other reasons I haven't thought of?

I am not inclined to do it because it seems like it could be used against you in a bust or even just the threat of blackmail.

What are your opinions on this? If you're someone like me who won't send IDs, will you video verify? Why or why not?