I know that there aren’t many prospective models who read here (Oh, but I can dream, can’t I??)..but if you do, y’all should all be aware of a nasty scam that’s being played on you that’s currently the rage.

My sincere thanks to legit photographer Michael Troop for initially alerting folk to this scam, and to the absolutely sexy and lovely Tara Tainton for giving her bandwidth to spread the word.

Here’s how the scam works, according to Mr. Troop:

1) Prospective model gets an email from a “company” that wants to hire them REALLY, REALLY BAD…but, unfortunately, they don’t have the scratch to pay the photographer to shoot them at this time, and said photog won’t shoot until he is paid. Would said model be willing to accept a check from us, then forward it to the photographer for payment so that we can get the shoot done??

[First red flag here: You can't pay the photographer directly yourself, but you can use ME to forward the check to him??]

2) Said model gets sucked in; says that she will forward the check.

3) Check is sent….but model finds out that the check is well over the cost for the photographer…as much as $500 to $2000 more.

4) Probably befuzzled as much as excited, model contacts “company”, which replies that model can just send the original amount to the “photographer” and keep the rest in her pocket.

[Red flag number Two: Where is the "photographer"?? And why can't "he" contact the model directly??]

5) Model does as offered and cashes the check, pays the “photographer”, and pockets the remainer.

6) Unfortunately, since the “check” is fake and drawn from some ficticious African bank, it bounces; leaving the model with not only the original amount of the check to repay, but a hefty NSF fee as well.

7) And when model attempts to contact the original “company” to find out WTF happened…the email suddenly doesn’t respond.

As bad enough as that is, though, it can get much worse:

Some “companies” will even offer to provide and pay for visas for prospective victims. This is extremely dangerous because if the model does not retain full access and control of their passports or visas, they could be detained in that country and not allowed to leave…and that is one of the dirtiest tactics used by the worst sex slavers and sex traffickers to entrap and imprison unwilling women.

Mr. Troop and Tara offer these helpful tips to avoid getting scammed:

1) The old rule follows as always: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. (Too good and NOT true, that is.)

2) No legitimate photographer will EVER have you cash a check for them, regardless of the sob stories they may use. That is considered highly unprofessional…and besides, don’t you think that if a model company were really legit, then they would be able to actually pay the photographer directly without any middleperson??

3) References, references, references. If a photographer is that good and offers that much money, they probably have a clientele of respectable models. A little Googling and a bit of investigation will go a long way….and real agencies will want to promote their models, not hide them.

4) If a legit modeling agency or photographer really wants you, THEY will pay your way to do a shoot….up to and including the transportation to and from the venue. If they insist on YOU paying your own way (unless you specifically choose to pay because you want to), then the BS alarms should be going off BIG TIME.

5) All legit modeling agencies and photographers insist on signed contracts and model releases BEFORE any money is exchanged or any poses struck…and the contract should be available upon request to be read before signing….NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES. If they can’t provide the contract at your request, then they’re more than likely a fake.

6) (Actually, this was #1 on Mr. Troop’s list, but I failed to mention it originally.)

KNOW YOUR MODELING RATES. These are universal standards that apply across the board. If someone is offering you as much as 10X the prevailing modeling rate, that’s usually the sign of a scam…or worse, an attempt to enslave.

7) And finally, according to Mr. Troop, never give your passport away to any agency or reporter; you will definitely need it if you need to flee the country for any reason. (See paragraph #8 above.)

Even if you are not a working model, or know someone who does model, it’s good to know how to prevent these scams from trapping more people. Mr. Troop deserves some praise for standing up for fair business practices…and his models seem pretty hot, too. (Wonder if Tara happens to be one of them??)

Shoutout to Amber Rhea, Renegade Evolution, and the folks at Bound, Not Gagged: you might get a laugh out of this:

NO, not the first segment about the botched lighting of the Christmas Tree in New York City…the second segment near the end.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC): 12-4-08 Oddball segment: Botched Christmas Tree Lighting in NYC, and Robot Pole Dancers in London)

I guess they save the WD-40 for the table dances, then???

Tags: Every 'Dog Has His Funny Bone

Remember when I had posted back in May [over at BPPA] on the proposal by the Federal Communications Commission that was originally put forth by an Internet start-up company called M2Z Networks that would offer up a portion of the wireless Internet spectrum to the public for free…but with the caveat that any free access include filtering of adult sexual content???

Well, now, guess what proposal is coming up on the docket of the outgoing FCC hearings this month??

From the online Wall Street Journal, via Raw Story:

Outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is pushing for action in December on a plan to offer free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans, despite objections from the wireless industry and some consumer groups.

[...]

The free Internet plan is the most controversial issue the agency will tackle in December. Mr. Martin shelved plans to consider a wider variety of sticky issues pending at the agency, including a request by the Hollywood studios to hobble TVs and set-top boxes so studios can offer copy-protected theatrical releases sooner.

The proposal to allow a no-smut, free wireless Internet service is part of a proposal to auction off a chunk of airwaves. The winning bidder would be required to set aside a quarter of the airwaves for a free Internet service. The winner could establish a paid service that would have a fast wireless Internet connection. The free service could be slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other material not suitable for children. The FCC’s proposal mirrors a plan offered by M2Z Networks Inc., a start-up backed by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.

Consumer advocates have objected to the FCC’s proposed pornography filter, while the wireless industry has objected to the entire free Internet plan. To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.

T-Mobile USA, in particular, has raised concerns. The Deutsche Telekom AG unit paid about $4 billion a few years ago for nearby airwaves and has complained that the free wireless Internet plan will likely result in interference for consumers of its new 3G wireless network. The FCC dismissed the company’s interference concerns this fall, although T-Mobile disagreed with that finding.

The main difference between the original M2Z plan and what is being proposed by the FCC now is that there would be a public auction for the spectrum being offered, whereas M2Z wanted to build the spectrum all by themselves.

Naturally, the existing wireless industry majors are all in an uproar about the proposal, mostly because it would basically remove a huge chunk of their profit base. T-Mobile has been especially concerned because of fears that the “free” spectrum would disrupt and interfere with their own wireless spectrum that they use for their commercial service….a charge that has been voriferously denied by M2Z and the plan’s proponents.

Just as naturally, most consumer groups are very much up in arms over the porn filtering requirement (and who says that it won’t be used to go after P2P transfers and use poor Internet users as guinea pigs for other means of government snooping and control, either??), calling it a major breach of First Amendment protections and a priori content censorship. A group of affiliated consumer groups led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the excellent Woodhull Freedom Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief expressing their strong opposition to the content filtering (the full brief can be read here — Warning, pdf file).

Strangely enough, though, the plan does have their supporters, especially in Congress; and not just the typical Religious Right social conservative Republicans who would love to see a porn-free Internet. Quoting from an Ars Technica article from last August:

Two prominent Capitol Hill Democrats have written a letter to Federal Communications Commission chair Kevin Martin supporting his proposal for a national smut-free broadband service. Their statement takes on wireless company charges that it will interfere with wireless services in neighboring spectrum areas.

“We agree with you that promoting universal broadband is an urgent national priority,” wrote Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) on Friday. “However, we are concerned that incumbent wireless carriers are seeking unnecessary and unprecedented testing delays to prevent new innovative competitors from entering the market.”

The letter is the first serious support that Martin’s beleaguered scheme has gotten from Capitol Hill. The FCC wants to auction off the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum region to a bidder who will provide a nationwide broadband service that’s free from both access fees and pornography. This area of the spectrum is also called the Advanced Wireless Services 3 (AWS-3) region. Martin’s plan has come under heavy fire of late, not only from wireless companies and Congressional Republicans, but from public interest groups and trade associations that call it a threat to freedom of speech on the Internet.

[....]

Eshoo, in fact, has submitted a bill to the House of Representatives that pretty much proposes what Martin wants. Her Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act of 2008 (H.R. 5846), reserves the same chunk of spectrum (2155-2180 MHz) and requires the service to provide technology that “protects underage users from accessing obscene or indecent material.” The legislation presently awaits debate in Markey’s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications. It has 14 co-sponsors, mostly Democrats, including Markey.

If this plan gets past big wireless, there is, of course, another hurdle ahead: the constitutionality of a government mandated service that doesn’t just obey the FCC’s legally shaky indecency rules, but has to block (dare we say “censor”?) the indecency in advance.

As Ars has reported, in July, nearly two dozen prominent public interest and civil liberties groups warned the FCC that the filtering part of the scheme could find itself facing a deluge of lawsuits. So far, proponents of the idea seem to have adopted an “We’ll drive off that bridge when we get there” approach to the First Amendment question.

Yep..more of that wonderful change we can believe in. I’m sure that Ernest is smirking reading that.

That particular proposed bill did die in the last Congress…but I’m sure that there will be attempts in the new Obamaized Congress next year to sneak such requirements through.

Thus far, the only bone that the proponents of this “free but porn-free” wireless spectrum have thrown at opponents has been an “opt-out” clause which would allow adults to exit the plan and continue to receive unlimited Internet access through traditional channels….at market rates. In short, you would have a two-tiered system of wireless access where the poor and working class would get “free” but greatly censored wireless Internet access, filtered to fit whatever the government (or the agency who wins the spectrum) decides is “proper speech”; and the rich and those willing to borrow up the wazoo get the full unemcumbered access, but at increased prices to make up for the loss of the “freeloaders”. All that, and still no net neutrality, either.

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Martin. I’d much rather a free system with full access and NO censorship at all from the top end (why not just allow end users through their own filters and blocking software to do the censorship for themselves??)…but if I had to choose between “free but filtered” and paying $60-$100 bucks a month for unlimited and uncensored access, well, I’ll just eat the loss and take the latter.

Here’s a novel idea, FCC: Why not stop trying to impose the Religious Right’s morals on the rest of us, and focus your limited attention span on what really matters to us….namely, how to cut down the excessive costs of delivering Internet service across the board (whether through satellite, cable or wireless), while increasing broadband speed for everyone?? How about actually removing the ties between the Big Media companies and Internet providers and allowing ISPs to offer their services through multiple channels?? Orrrr….here’s a even more novel concept: how about just getting the hell out of the way and letting end users decide for themselves what is appropriate for their families to view online?? Just as there is such a thing as the “V-chip” for TV’s (and don’t get me started on the FCC and their approaching shutdown for analog signals for TVs in favor of all-digital), there are numerous software fixes available for those who want to monitor their child’s viewing habits. And there is always the ultimate cure for those who are concerned about too much access to the Internet for children: it’s called “the OFF switch.” And those things called “BOOKS” don’t hurt, either.

And, Kevin Martin should be dumped into the Potomac for this debacle of a proposal…if for no other reason than the fact that he was the Bush Admin’s legal counsel for the Gore-Bush 2000 Presidential Theft. And, for being such a censorious, corporatist hack.

[crossposted also over at BPPA]