Printable View
[QUOTE=Nyx GG; 1568653]Yep you figured me out, it was all just a marketing campaign. There's no CEO's, no senator, and no flash drive. All of my clients are really plumbers.
Xoxox.
Nyx[/QUOTE]I'm assuming you chose plumbers cause you like plungers / plunging? Hopefully it isn't the backcrack. LOL
With all the news and talk of this Alexis Wright up in Maine its brought how very risky and potentially "Life changing / ruining" an event like this could be! Each of us understand there is a level of risk attached to what we do here, but do we ever contemplate being called to court via a summons? I'm guessing here but I would say that the lions share of the "Hobbiest" who spend time with working girls have significant others, careers, friends and acquaintances that would be shocked and very upset to find out what we've been up to during our busy days!
How many of us have gone through these verification procedures that some of the higher end working girls and agency's require? Was the risk of giving your REAL personal information worth the 1 hour reward you got from the girl? Was that one hour of enjoyment worth a lifetime of pain, humiliation and legal action if the provider you saw was busted and forced to give over your personal information? I personally have never given any REAL information to any provider, I use a burner throw away phone paid with cash and never give any verifiable information no matter how hot the girl is or how much I want to see her. And I'm not married! WTF are you married guys thinking? Do you have a death wish? You hand your ass on a plater to a working girl who could give a shit less about you or your personal life. Then you run like cockroaches when the inevitable arrest is made and this tight lipped provider has a full list of all her clients? Damn dudes! Rule number one. Try and use the big head first. Stop playing with disaster, if you give your personal info out, then also be prepared to have your life fucked up at some point.
I am on the fence with these guys up in Maine, on one hand I would love to see a few spineless politicians get burned if there on the list, but on the other hand, there one of us. And I hate to see anyone who is just enjoying good consensual sex get burned this way. Its almost like a witch hunt.
I didn't know anything about this girl, but after watching a few of her videos I got to say if I did know about her I would have been planning a roadtrip to Maine for sure. But most likely would stop short if the verification was too intrusive. I don't care if she was Pamela Anderson I'm not giving my personal info to anyone.
Muffy
[QUOTE=MuffyTheDiver;1569014]I'm guessing here but I would say that the lions share of the "Hobbiest" who spend time with working girls have significant others, careers, friends and acquaintances that would be shocked and very upset to find out what we've been up to during our busy days![/QUOTE]I guess there are some merits to being a "nobody" after all. Kinda makes me feel a little better about my life of obscurity. LOL
I honestly don't give a rat's ass about providing my personal info, other than the possibility that a provider would be foolish enough to keep detailed records of every encounter, including fees and sex acts performed, which LEO could use to charge me with a misdemeanor, as Alexis Wright seems to have done in this case. I would hope that she is the exception to the rule as far as intelligent discretion is concerned.
It has always been my assumption (yes, I know what happens) that a careful, honest provider would keep only the minimal necessary info to allow for a repeat visit, possibly with some sort of client rating in their Little Black Book, be it electronic or physical.
AW was neither careful, (client list with full details) nor honest, (clandestine videos) and as such she and every one of her clients will suffer for it. A name and phone number with a +1 does not make for evidence in court.
And Muffy, I understand completely what you mean about being on the fence. I'm as guilty of Schadenfreude as anyone where the big wigs are concerned, but I also hate to see brethren burn for what I myself participate in unabashedly.
RS1
[QUOTE=Hags Joe; 1568884]Not giving up such a password would be an easy obstruction of justice case, a felony in and of itself.
I fail to see how keeping this info protects the agency at all, especially keeping it digitally. Its use IMHO, is offensive (contacting clients for more work and blackmail) than anything defensive. Then again, I would never open up an agency or be a pimp, so maybe I don't understand.
Before anyone reads this the wrong way, NO, I am not saying that Nyx is either a pimp or would ever be a blackmailer.[/QUOTE]Hey hags, I tryed to pm you, Your in box is full. Hit me back please,
[QUOTE=Nrlmus;1568833]True, while not giving out her password would mean impending an ongoing investigation, in other words you stay in jail until you give it up.[/QUOTE]Not true. Obviously any data contained on this encrypted drive, if it exists, would be used as evidence against her. Attempting to force her to give up the password would be a violation of the fifth amendment.
[url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/82799004/United-States-v-John-Doe] United States v. John Doe[/url]
Stay safe, and happy hunting.
[QUOTE=Hags Joe; 1568884]Not giving up such a password would be an easy obstruction of justice case, a felony in and of itself.
I fail to see how keeping this info protects the agency at all, especially keeping it digitally. Its use IMHO, is offensive (contacting clients for more work and blackmail) than anything defensive. Then again, I would never open up an agency or be a pimp, so maybe I don't understand.
Before anyone reads this the wrong way, NO, I am not saying that Nyx is either a pimp or would ever be a blackmailer.[/QUOTE]I'd assume the information is kept so that clients don't need to be screened every time they call, I doubt she could keep track of them all without records. Remember, we're not talking about an independent who sees every client themselves, but an agency that combined probably sees several hundred clients per year. Then there's also other agencies or independents contacting her for references to consider as well.
As for the obstruction of justice, see my previous post on the fifth amendment.
Stay safe, and happy hunting.
[QUOTE=Ho Hunter 328; 1569291]I'd assume the information is kept so that clients don't need to be screened every time they call, I doubt she could keep track of them all without records. Remember, we're not talking about an independent who sees every client themselves, but an agency that combined probably sees several hundred clients per year. Then there's also other agencies or independents contacting her for references to consider as well.
As for the obstruction of justice, see my previous post on the fifth amendment.
Stay safe, and happy hunting.[/QUOTE]Quite right. Also keep in mind that I'm not the only one who answers the phone, so there are clients that I've never met, and never even talked to. Without keeping records I simply would not be able to do business. But I don't keep details of who clients see, let alone what they do. All I keep are names, numbers, and email addresses. I also don't do "cold calls", that just screams desperation to me, and I think it's very unprofessional.
Xoxo.
Nyx
You make valid points. I still see a chance that 5th amendment wouldn't be applied, but you make valid points.
Are you saying the govt doesn't have the resources to retreive the encrypted info? Or the means to force the owner to unlock it? By means they seize every asset and cash as procedes from a criminal activity and a few years in jail. Or a minor fine, probation and the promise to never do it again.
There are many, many successful providers out there that don't require the info Kat does.
Now, am I paranoid about opening my life up to someone who may in turn use my info to avoid being prosecuted if nabbed months from now? Remember it's a one way street, they don't provide us with verifiable personal info.
[QUOTE=Gansett; 1569432]Are you saying the govt doesn't have the resources to retreive the encrypted info? Or the means to force the owner to unlock it? By means they seize every asset and cash as procedes from a criminal activity and a few years in jail. Or a minor fine, probation and the promise to never do it again.
There are many, many successful providers out there that don't require the info Kat does.
Now, am I paranoid about opening my life up to someone who may in turn use my info to avoid being prosecuted if nabbed months from now? Remember it's a one way street, they don't provide us with verifiable personal info. [/QUOTE.
I myself could not for the life of me give out my personal info to someone I don't know anything about period. Is the gain worth the risk?
[QUOTE=Hags Joe;1569402]You make valid points. I still see a chance that 5th amendment wouldn't be applied, but you make valid points.[/QUOTE]The chances of the application of 5th amendment being successful here are very remote. It would probably also involve hiring the lawyer that is very expensive. There are so many ways around 5th amendment that I can't even begin to itemize. Impending investigation, obstruction of justice, that's what instantly comes to mind and I'm sure there are plenty of others that don't.
I believe that to give out your personal info to the provider is very dangerous. If in doubt, think of all the political people who had problems with it: Eliot Spitzer, David Vitter, Dick Morris. I'm sure there are plenty more that I didn't think of. If such a big fish is taken down, we, the smaller fish, most certainly have much narrower ponds to swim in. For God's sake what are we talking about, there is an Alexis Write case going on right now! The case which as I said in my previous posts, is being discussed here to exhaustion. I looked at some of her videos on-line and in none of them I saw faces of her clients present. How many lives do you think are going to be ruined as a result of that case? How many lives were changed as a result of the DC Madame case or Heidi Fleiss. These are more famous cases I'm talking about too. Ms. Fleiss posted 1, 000, 000 bond and was able to hire a very powerful attorney too. How many escort services do you think would be able to come even close to that?
To me, giving out your personal info for verification and walking the razor's edge amount to one in the same. I mean, I love Nyx-and-all but I have no idea what she is talking about when she calls requiring personal info "professional." Throughout the centuries it's actually have been the exact opposite. A true courtesan is the one that makes a stranger feel comfortable without knowing anything about him. She often wouldn't even know if her client is married, let alone his name, address or phone. She remembers each of her client's likes and dislikes too. Her safety is always handled separately from her clients.
Today, in this country, in this city, I see from time to time at least two providers who's been in it for quite a while, who's never been arrested and who know about me only what I told them myself. They screen their clients over phone, they use references, they hardly do backpage if ever, couple of them have friends (clients?) on the force and are very much up to date on what's going on in various areas of the vicinity. I'm sure some provide freebies to those that they feel they need for their safety too, kind of cost of doing business, you know.
If one calls verifying the client by means other then asking him for a reference 'being extra careful', I'd go with that. Calling it 'an industry's norm', well, initially I thought so too, but the more providers I see, the less I believe this being "an industry's norm." Mind you quite respectable providers too: educated, drug free, the once you'd never find on the street, and the once who really make an effort to make sure that their fame is somewhat limited.
But to call asking for verification 'professional'? I'm sorry but that goes against everything that I ever read or heard on the topic. It's a provider's or service's choice, and I, personally respect that but it has nothing to do with professionalism. Some services screen more, some less. Many high-end services in New York don't ask questions of anyone who's been referred to them by an already existing and trusted client. That's how those who really don't care if you know their name and address become their clients initially but then drug along those of their friends that prefer not to give out their personal info. I think considering our environment that's very professional, kind of balances out the service's security needs with sensitivity of those who prefer not to reveal anything about themselves. Is it risk-free? No. But one can never be completely risk free in this whether as a pro or a client anyway, especially here in the US.
[QUOTE=Nrlmus;1569624]The chances of the application of 5th amendment being successful here are very remote.[/QUOTE]I disagree. It seems pretty obvious to me that giving up a password that would provide access to data which would incriminate oneself would be covered by the fifth amendment. The recent (Feb 2012) federal court case I cited concurs with my opinion. Do we have any lawyers out there with experience in constitutional law that would like to comment on the viability of a fifth amendment defense in these circumstances?
Stay safe, and happy hunting.
Just a bit of fuel to the fire. Does this agency pay taxes? Do the owners? Do the "employees" get a 1099? You can PO local LE and states attorneys but if they get a wild hair across their ass and call in the IRS you are fuked and not in the good way.
[QUOTE=Nrlmus;1569624]Many high-end services in New York don't ask questions of anyone who's been referred to them by an already existing and trusted client. That's how those who really don't care if you know their name and address become their clients initially but then drug along those of their friends that prefer not to give out their personal info. I think considering our environment that's very professional, kind of balances out the service's security needs with sensitivity of those who prefer not to reveal anything about themselves.[/QUOTE]Which is exactly the kind of tactic that Uncle Leo frequently uses. While I will certainly consider references from already screened clients, I'll still need more than that alone.
I screen, many other providers and agencies do as well. It's certainly your choice not to submit to screening, there are providers out there who will see you without it, just as their are plenty of clients who have no problem with screening (and even appreciate it). But not submitting to screening will limit your options, just as I limit mine by requiring it. I turn down probably 70% of the calls I get every day because they can not, or will not, pass my screening. But the safety of my girls and myself are my utmost priority, and it's not a subject that's open to negotiation.
Xoxo.
Nyx
[QUOTE=Ho Hunter 328; 1569291]I'd assume the information is kept so that clients don't need to be screened every time they call, I doubt she could keep track of them all without records. Remember, we're not talking about an independent who sees every client themselves, but an agency that combined probably sees several hundred clients per year. Then there's also other agencies or independents contacting her for references to consider as well.
As for the obstruction of justice, see my previous post on the fifth amendment.
Stay safe, and happy hunting.[/QUOTE]But if there are multiple people with access to it, you can question the other person about ti and you have no 5th amendment worry.