Cameras in Massage Parlours

[Aimz]

Not 100% true... If they're installed WELL you'll never see them. But if you take into account that the attempt to conceal the camera was half-asses and the fact I worked in security for over 5 years and know what to look for. Yeah, it wasn't hard to pick out the one I saw. Plus I had about 5mins to kill before the girl came in.

 

[Sweet P]

loll man, Face the reality. An urban legend, you don't have any proof that it really existed. Thats why its called urban LEGEND. With the case of cameras in MP rooms, its not a legend since I installed them in some MPs in montreal, and I'm sure many other mp have cameras in the rooms. And I also found some in Mps that were not installed by me. And Some co-workers told me that they installed cameras in rooms of some mps too so.... how do you call this? A LEGEND?? loll... its real facts.

And its not the "rules". The owner install them without any "rules" or permit. They install them to spy just like a voyeur could place a spy cam in his bedroom to film her girlfriend secretly....

I don't know how many massage parlors there is in montreal. At least 20 and there is at least 7-8 of them (and I'm sure there is more) with Hidden cameras in the rooms.

 

[hudsongray]

Put me down as someone who has siginificant doubts about whether this spying at MP is widespread at all. Any massage parlour I've ever been in is dark in the room, many use candles, although most are on a dimmer turned way down low. in other words very poor conditions for a camera or particularly a two way mirror. Two way mirrors rely on light on the side being observed.

I'm also sceptical that a) the owners or managers need to get their jollies this way( do they not get a discount ? ) and b)that the girls wouldn't eventually find out and if they did would be ok with it.

Good way to destroy your business but I'm voting urban legend.

 

[Kittie Nya! Nya!]

Many pinhole camera can see really good in a darkness room. They don't need much lighting. Just one candle in a dark room can be enough to see good with the camera. For the 2 way mirror, you can place a camera that have infrared-led on it to have a night vision. Since its infrared you don't see them through the mirror and the camera can work since the "2 way mirror" is just a tinted glass. Like when you are in a car with tinted windows. Lets say you are the camera so in your car (behind the wall) you can see the people on the streets but they can't see you in your car....

Well, I think this thread should be closed. Since I personnally installed hidden cameras in mp's rooms, I can tell you that there is some massage parlors in montreal with cameras in their rooms. Thats it thats all... Believe it or not who cares....

 

[nat]

I also used to work in video surveillance and when I did it was required by law to post notices in any commercial establishment that cameras were installed. You commonly see such notices in most stores but no one really pays attention to them. If this is still the case, any massage parlor with video surveillance cameras in the rooms that doesn't have such notices posted can be in serious shit. And any licensed installer who does the job could also be looking for problems not to mention that it is unethical to accept such an installation job in the first place.

As far as installing hidden cameras, it isn't a very hard thing to do. Just take a look at this web shop to see things that are available to the public and imagine that these products are nothing when compared to what is available to professionals.

http://www.spycompany.com/video.htm

PS: You can always buy one of these if you want to check out your local parlor.

http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/sf-103.html

 

[randyken]

Yea thats true for the notices. They have to notice us when there is video surveillance. The problem is, since there is visible cameras like outside to see the parking, or to see the entrance or a camera inside to film the entrance then the notice is good. All the hidden cameras are not avertised so yes, they can be in real trouble. Now for the company that install camera (well, that was the case when I installed them in montreal MPs) they can only be in troubles if they help the owner to install cameras in public place without noticing anyone like washroom, gym room, motel room....etc. In a massage parlor well.... its not really the same thing since there is always the "its to protect the girl" reason.

 

[L B]

New privacy laws have been passed, the regulations for using hidden cameras are very strict now. It is even against the law to keep video images for more than 30 days if you have no legal reason to. I do not believe that it is lawful to have hidden cameras in the massage rooms.

 

[Lucylu]

You are right, its illegal. But they don't care about it. Selling drugs is illegal too and people still sell it. Unless they get caught (someone find the spy cameras and sue them) they will still use them..

 

[the hackmaster2013]

Learn what? That is a camera at cash area of some place.

 

[SmartA$$]

That isn't proof, it is an unsubstantiated assertion by an anonymous poster, with an unfounded rationale appended. Since voyeurism is considered a mental disorder, I have to question the supposed, alleged ubiquity as well.

 

[darkmousyfan]

Not a proof? lol. If I installed many of them in many mp's room in montreal then its because there is cameras in massage parlor.... its logic. At least, there is hidden cameras in these MPs that I installed them. Logic.

 

[RedSnook]

You can repeat the word logic as many times as you wish, it doesn't make it so, son. You are an anonymous poster with no credentials or credibility. I claim to have climbed Mount Everest and swam the Mariana Trench. Prove that it isn't so. Logic.

Tell you what, give us a list of all the places you installed them. If what you say is true, then it should be easy to verify, and then we have our proof.

 

[Dherbs]

Its not the same thing. We are talking about things I did in my career so why would I say bullshit like "I installed them" just to waste my time?? And do you really think I'm gonna tell here all the place I put cameras in there? It take just one crazy guy with the informations I could post here and all these MPs would be busted and maybe even the company I worked for..... Since I don't want any shits then I'm not gonna tell what MPs I did.

You can believe me or not I don't care. I know what I did so I don't need anyone to tell me if its true or not since its something I did by myself.

 

[Pompal 09.]

Yeah, you're right. nobody ever fronts to be an expert on eforum.xxx.



So, in other words, either you are lying about having installed them, or you don't give a shit about people's privacy (particularly vile given that you said the reason for the installation was the sexual gratification of the parlour owners.) Your pick.

 

[rposzich]

Look, I just did my work. They paid us to install them so thats what we did. I don't care where we installed them. We did what the owner wanted to have. The owner said "I want to protect the girls so I want a hidden camera in each room". We don't mind if the reason is true or if it was for voyeurism. We told him the price, he paid then we did it. Its finish so we leave and we pass to another contract....

 

[josey]

I can partially substantiate what this guy has said.

I have seen camaras in the reception and other areas of at least two MPs.

Wasn't sure if there were others in the rooms, but was worried enough (the mirrors that look suspiciously like the two-way cop-shop jobs, and unfamilar equiment in the room that looked suspiciously like camera casings).

In fact I was so uncomfortable that I no longer visit these places.

 

[420Borat]

I don't have any personal knowledge on the subject or the applicable law in Quebec, but I can see an MP owner installing hidden cameras for voyeuristic reasons and other reasons. It reminds me of the TV series "Californication" where hidden cameras in his office videotape Charlie Runkel masturbating while viewing porn on his computer on numerous occasions, and the video is later used to justify the firing of Runkel. In the case of the MP hidden cameras could be used to document a lady doing drugs, not performing or other misconduct which can be used to terminate her at a later time. Does anyone really believe she will go to the cops if she is confronted with video showing her own illegal conduct?

We have had several high profile criminal cases in Connecticut, one of which led to the enactment of our anti-voyeurism statute. In the 1st case a group of boys at a high school drilled a hole in the girls shower room adjacent to the gym, installed a peep cam and filmed girls taking showers. As if this was not enough, these stupid boys started sending texts with stills of the video and then someone sent it to one of the girls who was filmed nude, who complained to her parents. It was the usual story where one of the other girls filmed came from a family with political clout, the boys got prosecuted and the anti-voyeurism law was enacted. So doing what Dragonatic said he did in this thread would be illegal in Connecticut and he would be charged based on the admissions he has already made in this thread. Fortunately for Dragonatic he does not work in CT.

Second episode I am aware of occurred at a coffee shop in a sleepy town where I used to live some years ago. A guy installed a peep cam in a waste basket in the ladies room of the coffee shop in such a way that when any female customer sat down on the commode, he could get shots of her snatch. This guy then had a remote monitor and he would sit down in the coffee shop and while drinking the java would view his monitor. One of the coffee shop employees eventually became suspicious and called the police and they put the guy under surveillance. He was caught red handed, charged and pled out.

Third episode occurred at a local health club that had tanning beds. The perp, who was actually an employee of the club, would wait for a hot 18 year old to come in and rent one of the tanning beds. He would then go to the adjacent room (which was a supply closet), climb a ladder, lift the ceiling tile in the adjacent room, and take cellphone cam shots as the girl undressed. Very amateurish attempt- he was caught when the girl looked up and saw a ceiling tile move and she then got dressed and complained. I think the perp was about 21 years old. He was fired by the health club, criminally charged and convicted under the anti-voyeurism law plus he and the health club were later sued by the violated girl in civil court for damages.

Of course we also have the Erin Andrews episode mentioned by Merlot and which I previously posted about which led to a criminal conviction for the perp. I think he is doing time if I am not mistaken.

 

[feelingless]

Many years ago, an sp i befriended warned me about going to incalls if i ever decided to go that route. She told me to be especially careful about going to incalls where the sps worked out of her own places, since she had been made aware that some of these girls would secretely tape the sessions & then sell the tapes to internet video companies. I'm not sure if this was true or not, but that's what i had been told & this person had been in the business for several years, so i had no reason to doubt her. I've since only had a handful of incalls (one in Mtl and a few in Toronto) and they were always held in a room at an upscale hotel.

 

[VICKI C]

Selling a tape with most of the eforum.xxx members I've seen at GTs, including myself, would be worth the money they put into filming it.

 

[Feed Me Answers!]

Congratulations. You admitted, on a public board that you intentionally and knowingly broke federal law. I personally hope you get arrested along with the other shit heels who participated in the scheme. You could do your karma/yourself a world of good by reporting it. If they happen to sell the tape and it is viewed internationally, it is a matter for Interpol. Did you remember to wipe your fingerprints off all the wires and equipment?

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaCanada.pdf

PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Sexual Offences
Voyeurism
162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;
(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or
(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
Definition of “visual recording”
(2) In this section, “visual recording” includes a photographic, film or video recording made by any means.
Exemption
(3) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a peace officer who, under the authority of a warrant issued under section 487.01, is carrying out any activity referred to in those paragraphs.
Printing, publication, etc., of voyeuristic recordings
(4) Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1), prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available.
Punishment
(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (4)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.