Library camgirl busted

[LuckySmiles]

Just to be clear, I'm not defending her. I'm just saying that Jason Silverstein who wrote the article and the people at Daily News NY were being kind of shitty people including her real name. They knew they were putting her more at risk by doing so, people aren't dumb. They didn't have to do it.

I'm not really into the blame thing. Just having compassion and what not.

Technically, that Jason Silverstein wrote an article after the AP press dispatch, like hundreds of other newspapers. Her name was already outed in local PDX outlets the day before. I know we're on a forum with like-minded models and "benevolent" customers regarding privacy, but the general populace certainly don't have this kind of restraint when it comes to (what are still considered) immoral behaviours, and even less when they involve criminal activities.

Right it's a sucky situation for that person but on the whole it's how things work for everything, and it's not inherently bad. Anyone at anytime can go to a police department/gov agency with a FOIA request(freedom of information act) and get access to the public records for crime, death records,census information anything at all on the public record. And any of it can be legally published as long as it's true. That's usually a good thing and tends to be regarded as a plus about the US. especially when it comes to governmental issues etc.

 

[Poker_Babe]

I feel I should clarify something...
I absolutely agree that if you do a public show and you get busted, that is on you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either.
As for the bacteria thing... well I hadn't thought of that. I haven't seen the video, and I guess I'm assuming that she's as mindful as I would be (if I were in that situation, although for the record, I've never done a show in the public library before) to not leave any icky body fluid behind. But for the people walking around in the back ground, even the article says that they were oblivious to what was going on. So it's not like they would have even known if this didn't come out. And none of the bystanders have incurred any damages because of what she's done, so according to Oregon state law, they aren't really victims.
(Mind you, I'm not saying that it was ok for her to broadcast anyone over a live porn site without their consent. And it's NEVER OK WHEN MINORS ARE INVOLVED!)
I just think who ever ratted her out, (pardon my French) needs an ass whoopen' for being a punk ass snitch.

 

[Sansa]

I really hope that she doesn't go to jail, especially sense there really weren't any victims in her alleged crime.

I completely disagree with this. Unless she was taking a steam cleaner along and cleaning up after each show in a way that could kill all bacteria/STDs that might be in her bodily fluids... then she was absolutely endangering other people. We have no way of knowing if she had any sort of STI/STD (just being a camgirl does NOT by any stretch of the imagination ensure that you're 'clean'; after all, they don't require a blood test to sign up for camsites), and some of those can live for DAYS on surfaces!

You have perfectly valid points by all means. But I think a lot of people are careless with bodily fluids, not just camgirls who do public shows. There are so many people who NEVER wash their hands after they go to the bathroom. I used to know a girl who didn't even when she was on her period, and there was a huge issue at my old place of employment with some of guys who wouldn't wash their hands ever, even after taking a crap! I kid you not, my manager had to send out reminders on a regular basis because of how often it happened. He wouldn't ever publicly embarrass anyone, but was super vocal about how everyone needs to wash their hands.

I don't know, I guess I live my life assuming that every surface is been touched by someone who doesn't keep themselves clean enough to my standards.

Digressing, library shows seem too risky at this point. Is getting a few hundred or thousand people in your room really worth potentially landing you on an offender's list or in jail?

It was one of the things that has always bugged me about a lot of guys on camsites who try and persuade girls into doing public shows, or things like when I've done outdoor shows people have tried to persuade me into doing more and more. Either they do know the repercussions and just don't care or they are so focused on getting a good wank in that they never think it through that this is a real life person in a real place. It is easy to be subject to peer pressure, when you have hundreds/thousands of viewers, many egging you on and then loads of other camgirls doing the same thing and getting great reactions I can understand why girls do it. I think many girls don't know to take precautions or really think it through at all sadly.

This. Newbie advice #1827: Don't let members pressure you into doing public shows. Maybe no one caught you at the time in public, but the show could be there forever on the internet, as it happened with this girl. :/

 

[Camgirl]

Just another of the many victimless crimes our morality and control-driven system chooses to villify. :roll:
Maybe one day we'll learn to let others be.

What about the children shown on cam during library shows. Maybe their parents would not choose to have that happen.
Or all the people who don't want to be on an adult site. Maybe there's a Preacher sitting there reading a book and a screen shot of him in the background with a naked masturbating woman goes viral on twitter. That would be rather damaging to his ministry.
What about the college and all the other students that attend? Now people associate Oregon State University as the college where the naked chick bated on cam. Not only does it diminish the reputation of the college but it lowers the prestige of getting a degree from there. So really every student there might be affected by this

It's not really that victimless.

These are great points, and often the ones people don't consider. :thumbleft:

Although I am not innocent - I did a few public shows about 5 years ago when I was still somewhat new to camming, I have to agree with you. There are ramifications other than the obvious ones.

I would be pretty pissed off if my teenage daughter was doing some research at a library and came across a woman (or man) half naked rubbing their private parts. Sexual freedom shouldn't include exposing ourselves to others without their consent.

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

Kind of an icky situation all around, I think. This doesn't really warrant the model having her life entirely fucked up, but it also isn't a very smart thing to do and may be infringing on other people's rights as some have noted.

As to the reporting, although I have less and less respect for the media as I see more of how ethical they're not, we all know they are in the business of distributing information, not hiding it. Although it would have been nicer not to publish the model's personal info, it's just not something the media does. They sometimes protect the identity of an alleged victim, but I don't think they ever protect the identity of the accused (which is actually kind of wrong IMO since if they turn out to be innocent, the story will have damaged them unjustly). Also, bear in mind that the reporter probably has no understanding of what the risks are unless he happens to be familiar with the cam (or porn as he apparently called it) industry. He and his paper may not be dumb (although I wouldn't entirely rule that out), but they probably don't usually see the perpetrator of a crime to be someone who is at risk, nor does society in general for that matter.

Seems like it was pretty nasty for the person who told on her to do that, agreed. Either she was just being mean, or she feels strongly that doing this in a public place is wrong and wanted to put a stop to it. Seems unlikely she thinks porn is immoral considering she had to be on the porn site to see the video in the first place.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Seems like it was pretty nasty for the person who told on her to do that, agreed. Either she was just being mean, or she feels strongly that doing this in a public place is wrong and wanted to put a stop to it. Seems unlikely she thinks porn is immoral considering she had to be on the porn site to see the video in the first place.

What makes you think it was a "she"? I was thinking it might be an ex bf, or maybe some jerk off that she went to school with who just so happened to recognize her, and then couldn't keep his mouth shut.

 

[Sansa]

Seems like it was pretty nasty for the person who told on her to do that, agreed. Either she was just being mean, or she feels strongly that doing this in a public place is wrong and wanted to put a stop to it. Seems unlikely she thinks porn is immoral considering she had to be on the porn site to see the video in the first place.

What makes you think it was a "she"? I was thinking it might be an ex bf, or maybe some jerk off that she went to school with who just so happened to recognize her, and then couldn't keep his mouth shut.

I read something that they were able to verify that it was a woman from Romania who uploaded the video.

 

[eclipse76]

Seems like it was pretty nasty for the person who told on her to do that, agreed. Either she was just being mean, or she feels strongly that doing this in a public place is wrong and wanted to put a stop to it. Seems unlikely she thinks porn is immoral considering she had to be on the porn site to see the video in the first place.

What makes you think it was a "she"? I was thinking it might be an ex bf, or maybe some jerk off that she went to school with who just so happened to recognize her, and then couldn't keep his mouth shut.

Cause her name is in the paper?

A police log of the citation, issued Jan. 27, lists a 20-year-old woman, Kaitlyn Yarnell, as the complainant. OSU staff confirmed the same woman is currently enrolled at the school.

Yarnell denies filing the complaint. She told GoLocalPDX the complaint was sent to the Oregon State Police, using the email application on her computer, by one of her seven female roommates, all of whom are OSU students. She said the email was sent from her computer without her knowledge. When contacted through Facebook earlier Thursday, Yarnell denied any and all involvement. Within hours her Facebook page was inaccessible.

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

Seems like it was pretty nasty for the person who told on her to do that, agreed. Either she was just being mean, or she feels strongly that doing this in a public place is wrong and wanted to put a stop to it. Seems unlikely she thinks porn is immoral considering she had to be on the porn site to see the video in the first place.

What makes you think it was a "she"? I was thinking it might be an ex bf, or maybe some jerk off that she went to school with who just so happened to recognize her, and then couldn't keep his mouth shut.

I thought I'd read that in one of the early posts. Apologies if I was mistaken.

One other thought: it would be nice if it comes out that the video was on the porn site only because it was stolen content. Maybe if they got some grief over that, it would help cut down on that sort of thing going forward.

 

[MrRodry]

Oh yeah! Such a victim of circumstance! If a girl can't go out into a public place that has a certain expectation of decorum, and strip and masturbate for an online audience without the fear of being outed and prosecuted, then I just don't know what this world is coming to. Those darn scumbag cappers! It's all their fault!

You can be sure that now that the media is catching on to something this juicy, there are going to be more and more stories like this coming out. Time the move the operation out of the library, ladies, and head to somewhere the cops won't be looking. Might I suggest a church, or a hospital waiting room? Perhaps a museum? And for the models who have already been caught, maybe they could offset fines by doing courtroom shows.

:lol: Avoid churches.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Seems like it was pretty nasty for the person who told on her to do that, agreed. Either she was just being mean, or she feels strongly that doing this in a public place is wrong and wanted to put a stop to it. Seems unlikely she thinks porn is immoral considering she had to be on the porn site to see the video in the first place.

What makes you think it was a "she"? I was thinking it might be an ex bf, or maybe some jerk off that she went to school with who just so happened to recognize her, and then couldn't keep his mouth shut.

Cause her name is in the paper?

A police log of the citation, issued Jan. 27, lists a 20-year-old woman, Kaitlyn Yarnell, as the complainant. OSU staff confirmed the same woman is currently enrolled at the school.

Yarnell denies filing the complaint. She told GoLocalPDX the complaint was sent to the Oregon State Police, using the email application on her computer, by one of her seven female roommates, all of whom are OSU students. She said the email was sent from her computer without her knowledge. When contacted through Facebook earlier Thursday, Yarnell denied any and all involvement. Within hours her Facebook page was inaccessible.

Oops my bad. I guess I missed that.

 

[Poker_Babe]

:lol: Avoid churches.

Now thats just... icky... :angry-devil: uke-front: uke-huge:

 

[LuckySmiles]

just as an incidental addition to my point. When I took journalism in school there were rumors of incidents of rape occurring on campus that the school had a policy of keeping hush hush to protect it's rep. for prospective students. No one really knew at the school what was going on true/rumors etc, so my professor volunteered me- the least intimidating person in class, haha, to go down to police station and demand the blotters for the weekend. They shoo'ed me away and then as a class exercise we all typed up and signed FOIA requests that I had to bring back to the police station to get the blotter reports which they eventually obliged and we could find out whats up.

Overall having information access is generally a good right to appreciate know what I mean, even if it's kinda screwed up in these cases. You can't make exceptions just for camgirls. That's like saying you can't publish the name of an embezzling corporation that loses workers pensions because the owner might get harassed or death threats. By most people's opinions even though that owner might be "more in the wrong" than public nudity but.. kind of have to keep it the same for everyone to keep it fair and stay out of the moral debates in these laws.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Overall having information access is generally a good right to appreciate know what I mean, even if it's kinda screwed up in these cases. You can't make exceptions just for camgirls. That's like saying you can't publish the name of an embezzling corporation that loses workers pensions because the owner might get harassed or death threats. By most people's opinions even though that owner might be "more in the wrong" than public nudity but.. kind of have to keep it the same for everyone to keep it fair and stay out of the moral debates in these laws.

Agreed!!! Selective enforcement puts ALL of our rights in danger.

 

[AerynShade]

I really detest public cam shows. I still remember how angry I was that a model from almost 4 years ago got away with them and showing others on cam all the time. (Often including children in the background.)

I will say though, while university libraries are better than public libraries, generally speaking every surface in a library will have come in contact with someone's various bodily fluids at some point.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

You guys make some great points!

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Then there's the issue of being in public and potentially broadcasting innocent bystanders on your feed; I'm not just talking about children here (though obviously that is a major problem, and something absolutely abhorrent, IMO), I'm talking about *anyone* who might walk by and be caught by the feed. They didn't consent to being streamed on a porn site, they don't have the proper age verification uploaded, and it's just horrible to involve them without their knowledge. Let's be honest, a lot of girls will *purposefully* get random people in the frame just to 'prove' they're in public.

I'm so glad you're bringing this up.
Aside from the more obvious issues like the ickiness and potential danger of bodily fluids, and the horrible fact that children can get and have gotten broadcast, some models just haven't realized (or don't care) that not everyone is just OK with or has a positive/neutral attitude towards being seen on an adult site. You never know who might be deeply religious or have a completely different set of morals than we do, and there are people who could be seriously stressed out by the knowledge that they've been shown on an adult site. Just because we don't share someone else's morals and feel like we're more open-minded than them or whatever, doesn't mean they don't have the right to not show up on a freaking camsite..

If you can't see their face, it still doesn't make it OK.
If they're blurry, it still doesn't make it OK.
If you have all your clothes on, it still doesn't make it OK.

Camgirls can't put other people into that situation. If you don't have enough of an overview and control of the situation that you're able to keep everyone who's not a verified model on the site out of view and out of the viewers' earshot, or intentionally don't hide people (in order to make your show more interesting/exciting), then get out of the library. No one deserves to be broadcast on an adult site so that you can get a few thousand more people into your room.
Imagine the uproar if porn companies shot 'public' type shoots with actual pedestrians around, instead of paid extras who are aware that they're being filmed.

I was going to make the same points you and Gemma made. My little head finds the public shows exhilarating and good fapping material. My big head knows that worse case they expose children to sex acts and in most cases result in others getting public exposure that most people find unwanted and could be the source of humiliation and god knows what else. I don't want to be in porn film, I especially don't want to be cast in a porn film as Guy #3 in library. I'll get down right mean when I get cast against my will. You can't use my image in a commercial setting without my consent. I'd hire expensive lawyers in multiple countries and sue the camsite, the model, the uploader, and even the tube site if they fail to quickly act on the DCMA.

I also find it a double standard if it was a guy on something like chat roulette doing this in a library, he'd likely be prosecuted, and if not thrown in jail than at least be a convicted sex offender. I don't think society would be well served by having the model go to jail, but i think she deserves some punishment.

 

[nicolekn]

I feel bad for the poor girl :crybaby: . This is why I hate people who record shows. Things like being outed like this is scary. I hope she is safe.

 

[Azhrarn]

I refuse to watch "library" shows. My gut just tells me it's wrong, but if you pressed me for an answer, I guess I'd say because it violates most people's fundamental beliefs about sexuality, that "whatever goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom(s) is their business and no one else's." Well, libraries are not private settings, and the people who might appear in them haven't given their consent. But beyond that, just imagine the potential uproar if one of these girls was arrested and it was found out that she cammed on MFC. Not only would it give negative publicity to other MFC cam girls, it would also generate massive interest in MFC on the part of the general public... which is something that most MFC cam girls presumably wouldn't want.

 

[Fay_Galore]

I actually had no idea library shows were in fact illegal, I'm pretty baffled why girls would go that far if it's obviously against the law.

I am wondering what the law says about these things in the US. I was curious so I looked it up for the Netherlands.

Basically being completely nude is not allowed in the public space (which includes libraries, schools en thus also college libraries), being topless is a bit of a grey area, it is what they call 'cultural standards' and is officially not a crime (but frowned upon anywhere else but poolside/beach).

The act of streaming images online with other people's faces visible is legal (like streetcams etc) although people who are in the shot and upset about it could protest it under the law of portrait right. (I think this is the same in the US) (and just for the record, by these facts, being topless and having a kids face in the background is unfortunate but not illegal)

any sexual acts in the public space is, same as being completely nude, forbidden. it's not a major crime, it's a fine of around 300 euros.

now, I've seen a spectrum of library shows, and IMO it's pretty easy to draw a moral line depending on the law. and I guess that's what it's there for?

I'm sorry a bit sidetracked from the discussion at hand, but I just never realised the legal aspect of it.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

I refuse to watch "library" shows. My gut just tells me it's wrong, but if you pressed me for an answer, I guess I'd say because it violates most people's fundamental beliefs about sexuality, that "whatever goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom(s) is their business and no one else's." Well, libraries are not private settings, and the people who might appear in them haven't given their consent. But beyond that, just imagine the potential uproar if one of these girls was arrested and it was found out that she cammed on MFC. Not only would it give negative publicity to other MFC cam girls, it would also generate massive interest in MFC on the part of the general public... which is something that most MFC cam girls presumably wouldn't want.

I get what your driving at, but I think it could be put better. I've done outdoor shows before, but I wouldn't consider doing a library show, due to the fact that people could walk by. I've always felt a pit in my stomach when I've seen people walk by during library shows. It felt like it could be compared to them getting groped anonymously in public, then somehow it having an online permanence as well. Just because their face isn't shows doesn't make it alright.

When it comes to public verses private settings though, I have one thing to say...it's online, hence though it may feel private her being on her bed, it is quite the opposite. The way I think about camming is it's kinda like doing yoga. You can do yoga for either meditation or to help your both (or even both). Camming can be used for money of course, or for exploring yourself (both sexually and non-sexually). Basically though a cammer should be fully aware of the consequences of what they could be doing to themselves and other people...sadly not enough care till it's too late.

 

[Azhrarn]

When it comes to public verses private settings though, I have one thing to say...it's online, hence though it may feel private her being on her bed, it is quite the opposite.

It's a private broadcasting location. If you're on your bed, in your own bedroom, in your own home, there's zero chance that some innocent bystander is going to accidentally wander into your video feed.

 

[BarbieLuv]

...just imagine the potential uproar if one of these girls was arrested and it was found out that she cammed on MFC. Not only would it give negative publicity to other MFC cam girls, it would also generate massive interest in MFC on the part of the general public... which is something that most MFC cam girls presumably wouldn't want.

We don't have to imagine, that's the exact situation that this entire thread is based around. It's already happened, no need to talk about it in the abstract or 'what if' sense.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

I actually had no idea library shows were in fact illegal, I'm pretty baffled why girls would go that far if it's obviously against the law.

I am wondering what the law says about these things in the US. I was curious so I looked it up for the Netherlands.

Basically being completely nude is not allowed in the public space (which includes libraries, schools en thus also college libraries), being topless is a bit of a grey area, it is what they call 'cultural standards' and is officially not a crime (but frowned upon anywhere else but poolside/beach).

The act of streaming images online with other people's faces visible is legal (like streetcams etc) although people who are in the shot and upset about it could protest it under the law of portrait right. (I think this is the same in the US) (and just for the record, by these facts, being topless and having a kids face in the background is unfortunate but not illegal)

any sexual acts in the public space is, same as being completely nude, forbidden. it's not a major crime, it's a fine of around 300 euros.

now, I've seen a spectrum of library shows, and IMO it's pretty easy to draw a moral line depending on the law. and I guess that's what it's there for?

I'm sorry a bit sidetracked from the discussion at hand, but I just never realised the legal aspect of it.

She's in Oregon, that has the best free-speech and freedom-of-expression laws in America. Public nudity is completely legal and isn't considered public indecency. But sexual conduct is.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.465

It kind of makes the whole thing even more disrespectful. Like, come on! You're in a place where you can make public nude art! ...soo let's masturbate in a library.

 

[Azhrarn]

...just imagine the potential uproar if one of these girls was arrested and it was found out that she cammed on MFC. Not only would it give negative publicity to other MFC cam girls, it would also generate massive interest in MFC on the part of the general public... which is something that most MFC cam girls presumably wouldn't want.

We don't have to imagine, that's the exact situation that this entire thread is based around. It's already happened, no need to talk about it in the abstract or 'what if' sense.

She's not an MFC girl. She works for a different site.

 

[BarbieLuv]

...just imagine the potential uproar if one of these girls was arrested and it was found out that she cammed on MFC. Not only would it give negative publicity to other MFC cam girls, it would also generate massive interest in MFC on the part of the general public... which is something that most MFC cam girls presumably wouldn't want.

We don't have to imagine, that's the exact situation that this entire thread is based around. It's already happened, no need to talk about it in the abstract or 'what if' sense.

She's not an MFC girl. She works for a different site.

No, she's an MFC girl. That 'ReptCams' watermark was put there by the guy who capped/uploaded it. If you actually go to ReptCams.com, you'll see that it's just an affiliate website, not an actual camming platform.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

I don't see why it matters whether she's MFC or not. I don't think any cammer wants that happening no matter what site.

 

[BarbieLuv]

I don't see why it matters whether she's MFC or not. I don't think any cammer wants that happening no matter what site.

True, but MFC is the only site I can think of where a girl being in a public place wouldn't immediately get her shut down/banned from the site. It's forbidden/strictly enforced on pretty much all camming platforms except MFC, and even there I believe it's technically against the rules... but we all know how MFC is about selective enforcement, and public shows are a big money maker.

 

[Ann_Sulu]

I don't see why it matters whether she's MFC or not. I don't think any cammer wants that happening no matter what site.

True, but MFC is the only site I can think of where a girl being in a public place wouldn't immediately get her shut down/banned from the site. It's forbidden/strictly enforced on pretty much all camming platforms except MFC, and even there I believe it's technically against the rules... but we all know how MFC is about selective enforcement, and public shows are a big money maker.

There are other sites, KinkLive for instance, that allow shows in public places, but you're right that they aren't as high traffic/well known. Either way as long as people do stuff that potentially shows people who are unknowingly on cam...this will only make camming look bad no matter what site.

 

[Azhrarn]

I don't see why it matters whether she's MFC or not. I don't think any cammer wants that happening no matter what site.

True, but MFC is the only site I can think of where a girl being in a public place wouldn't immediately get her shut down/banned from the site. It's forbidden/strictly enforced on pretty much all camming platforms except MFC, and even there I believe it's technically against the rules... but we all know how MFC is about selective enforcement, and public shows are a big money maker.

It ought to be strictly enforced on MFC too. Not just because of the potential liability on MFC's part, but also because MFC owes it to the girls who choose to work for them. I know cam girls who hate to be recorded, but the usual traffic for MFC is older guys looking for "wank" material. However, when a story like this breaks, and if MFC's name is publicly and widely associated with the incident, then MFC is suddenly going to start receiving a lot more traffic than it usually does from people who are just curious about the story - younger guys, minors, women. Seems to me that increase in non-traditional traffic would increase the chances that a cam girl who wishes to remain anonymous might be publicly identified and revealed. So in this case, it's probably a good thing that someone put that Reptcams.com watermark(?) on the video.