"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2561011]The social doesn't come into play at the time you buy the card, typically they have to be activated before you can use them, and I guess CC require social (or at least some of them)? If its a reloadable credit card, it will need a way for you to add funds to it at some point. If it's a gift card / prepaid debit, then as long as the website accepts them I suppose if you paid cash you're probably as anonymous as one can get.

Nothing remotely connected to the Internet or computers is truly anonymous. There are more ways to track someone than could even be discussed here. Just getting a prepaid card or burner phone is enough to throw the wife off the trail, but beyond that it would barely put a speed bump in the road for LE.

If the purpose is to not have one's real name in an SD site membership list (in case they get hacked like AM did with the threat of members published), then as long as the website accepts the card it should be good enough.[/QUOTE]

Good discussion on this thread of recent and here. I have to wonder if we are wandering off track a bit? There needs to be a distinction between some anonymity and safety versus being invisible to LE. The former makes sense as a prudent move, the later isn't going to happen with advice proffered here.

Me thinks the purpose of having a burner phone and alias on a SD site is to maintain ones privacy and NOT necessarily evade criminal detection. You want the burner phone or SD account to NOT point directly back to you so that one is protected from nefarious situations. Yes, you do something criminal (felony) and the resources of the state are going to come to bear on you. But even if one offers "sex for money" its usually a misdemeanor and not worthy of a huge resource spend. So the point is if a girl gets crazy, a jealous BF / hubby appears, SO gets snoopy or something else bad happens, one has an extra degree of separation that can be easily severed.

The point is taking SOME precautions, versus take NO precautions. Nothing is going to be perfect, but something is better than nothing.

[QUOTE=PghGuy2005;2560857]Since we are on the topic of avoiding LE what should one do if busted?

If the only words out of one's mouth is "I am not saying anything until my attorney gets here" the right thing to do? Of course LE will try to scare one into admitting to the act.[/QUOTE]Sorry PghGuy. You stepped on one of my hot buttons. This isn't a personal attack, just a impassioned reply.

Look. If one needs to ask this question IMHO they are playing "blind" and need an education! The easiest way to end up a statistic is to wander into the game without the knowledge and tools one needs.

LE are specifically trained at interrogation and questioning techniques. This is their job this is what they studied. Their whole mission is to get YOU to confess to a crime. It makes the rest of the legal system process easier.

I think the philosophy has something to do with the way we are raised. Everyone remembers getting caught red-handed with their hand in the cookie jar when a kid. And of course saying, "I didn't do it!" We then are scolded, not for the act but for the lie. So ingrained in us is that voice that tells us when caught:"tell the truth!" So since this is in human nature (socialization) LE will use that guilt against you to get you to "tell the truth" and in effect testify against yourself (Giving up one's 5th Amendment Rights!) When you talk to LE you are going up against pros. And you want to do that without any training? Good luck!

Look, when a cop stops you on the freeway for speeding, what is the first question he / she asks you? "Where were you going so fast?" Sounds innocent enough and usually delivered in a friendly tone: but it is anything but friendly. Answer that and in effect you have admitted to speeding! Look, knew a guy who was a Public Defender and he told me 95% of the cases that came across his desk he could do NOTHING with because the person had opened their mouth, talked to LE and had incriminated them self!

So the only way to avoid self incrimination is to get some training into how to deal with LE.

That is why I think it is in every hobbyists best interest to watch the first 15+ minutes of the video "Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters " Watch it and take notes, watch it again, watch it until your eyes bleed! But [B]watch it until you have the information engrained in you.[/B] When LE stops you is no time to try to be thinking back, "Gee, now what did that video say I should be doing right now?

[url]https://youtu.be/yqMjMPlXzdA[/url]

The tools are out there, no need to wander around ignorant (lack of knowledge) and at risk!

Good luck & stay safe!

[QUOTE=CephlapodLove;2561050]Good discussion on this thread of recent and here. I have to wonder if we are wandering off track a bit? There needs to be a distinction between some anonymity and safety versus being invisible to LE. The former makes sense as a prudent move, the later isn't going to happen with advice proffered here.
[/QUOTE]I've always believed that wandering off track is inevitable in a single, monolithic thread like this one. In the past I've lobbied to see the entire discussion of sugar daddying be spun off into a series of sub-forums, categorized into appropriate topic-specific buckets. It doesn't make sense to try to cover all of the issues an SD could potentially encounter in one thread, much less one that's categorized under a single US city. Some agreed with my goals, some didn't. I'm sure everything we are discussing now will get discussed again 4 or 5 thousand posts later, as the thread grows larger and more cumbersome. One of the better things that has come from it, IMO is the separate FAQ and index thread, though I'm not sure how many folks view it; hopefully newcomers at least.

You brought up a good point though -- I always encourage anonymity, and recently suggested it as a priority in the recent "top three rules" thread. In striving for brevity in that particular post I probably failed to mention that I only meant to remain as anonymous to the SB as possible, such that she does not know too much about you. I wasn't suggesting that as sugar daddies we need to worry about video surveillance at Walmart or the serial numbers on pre-paid cards. Being anonymous to LE agencies and anonymous to SBs are two very different things.

One of my other critical rules is simple enough -- as an SD, don't do anything illegal (including directly offering money for sex). Following that rule prevents us from having to worry about LE at all, at that point we only need to worry about the SO finding out, or an SB interfering with our professional life. Forgoing that rule, the JLizard-Plan-For-Success (tm) becomes less effective for sure.

So, I would say invisibility to LE is not a practical goal -- at all. Not in the information age. What can be achieved though, I think is a reasonable balance between managing one's professional or family life and playing the field a little. The field can get addictive, and succumbing to that addiction can cost a man a great deal in the overall scheme of life happiness. I do think reasonable balance is possible, even if it's a constant struggle.

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2560456]In a perfect world, yes that would prevent individual SDs from getting involved in trafficking cases, but human error does occur and I wonder how many SDs are going to ask for identification from every girl, knowing she is going to ask for their ident in return (thereby exposing themselves and violating my anonymity recommendation). Not to mention the girl could have a fake ident. Technically the SD sites do not allow girls under 18, and that should be avoidance enough, but history is shown that we still need to be on our toes about this.

However, it's important to understand that prevention of individual SDs getting busted is one of two distinct issues I've been discussing here, and IMO the lesser of the two risks.

The big risk is that "something like" a trafficking case brings unwanted attention to the SD sites, shutting down the commerce pipeline that makes them possible. And, all it would take is one high profile media case of the scenario I've described. It doesn't matter if SDs check her IDs and avoid her or not, it could still happen if people see SD sites as an escort mechanism. That's the part I think we should all be worried about if we want to preserve the hobby.

The trafficking example is just that -- an example. Something like the Google exec / heroin call girl media case could also bring similar, unwanted attention. Anything that piques prosecutors interest. Recently it was "revenge porn" sites, in the near future it could be SD sites.[/QUOTE]Regarding "Anything that piques the prosecutors interest" when that happens they can create a false perception of the SD sites that causes the commerce issues you're talking about.

I do have a question. You mentioned "revenge porn" sites. Can you bring me up to speed on what the definition is?

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2560699]I would think that simply specifying per date amount is probably a violation of SA's terms of service and definition of "allowance", but probably in itself not illegal since a meeting isn't necessarily sex.

However it's important to note that if the SB tells a cop you agreed to $ for sex, he can arrest you and your mug shot is now in the search engines whether you admit to it or not. , or whether he has any further proof other than taking her word for it. They might drop the charge later that afternoon but by that time the damage is done, your mug shot becomes public record and front page news. So it's not only important to not specifically specify $ for sex, its important that she doesn't perceive the arrangement as working that way -- otherwise her simple perception plus careless language with an officer could still get you arrested.

So you just have to avoid LE involvement altogether if there is any implication of pay-per-play. If you can honestly say you have never agreed to pay anything for anything, and are sure you can back it all up, then you might avoid getting arrested but it's not a guarantee. This is a position I don't like to be in at all, because if the SB goes psycho, the law is unlikely to favor our side of things.

Many years ago a girl I was banging (not an SB) got jealous and made a scene, and in order to avoid her physical blows or put myself in jeopardy of being charged by touching / subduing her, I just got in my car to get the fuck out of there. So she kicks dents in the side of my (new) car as I'm pulling out. I couldn't do anything in terms of police involvement because I was in a LTR at the time and wasn't supposed to be creeping around that night anyway. If I had gone to the cops I ran the risk of her making something up and charging me. So I just had to take my lumps (or dents in this case). Pussy is never free.

My point is that if we are playing covertly, we can't count on the law to help us when things go bad. It's kind of like illegal immigrants not being able to report being robbed for fear of being deported.[/QUOTE]All good analogies and points.

[QUOTE=Mike7794;2561360]Regarding "Anything that piques the prosecutors interest" when that happens they can create a false perception of the SD sites that causes the commerce issues you're talking about.

I do have a question. You mentioned "revenge porn" sites. Can you bring me up to speed on what the definition is?[/QUOTE]Revenge Porn Sites are probably those where a dude posts video he took of a GF while they were dating and after the break up decided to "cash in" and sell the video to a website.

[QUOTE=Mike7794;2561360]Regarding "Anything that piques the prosecutors interest" when that happens they can create a false perception of the SD sites that causes the commerce issues you're talking about.[/QUOTE]Yep. That's all it takes. The web has been the launching point for many new legislative actions in recent years. It is a constantly changing landscape where the law is constantly redefining what is or isn't a tortious or criminal act. The perception is what matters more than what the letter of the law says today.

[QUOTE=Mike7794;2561360]
I do have a question. You mentioned "revenge porn" sites. Can you bring me up to speed on what the definition is?[/QUOTE]Broadly I guess you could say it's been the posting of explicit pics without the consent of the photo subject, but individual legal definitions are in flux. You might want to research Intimate Privacy Protection Act, and individual state's legislative activity on the subject of revenge porn. In layman's terms I guess IPPA defines it as posting an intimate pic with the knowledge that someone else could be hurt or embarrassed by the act of posting it, not necessarily an attempt to make money from it. I'm not sure how things will pan out.

My own practice on this is sort of a do unto others policy -- I don't do anything with anyone else's photo that I wouldn't want them to do with a photo of me. I sometimes send pics of girls to very close friends -- maybe nudes, but it's people that I trust not to share anywhere else. I wouldn't mind if a girl sent a photo of me to a friend if she indeed knew she could trust that friend not to share it outside the scope of their conversation. To play it safe I'm just very careful where I put photos. Most of the time the only thing I share are photos that a girl has already posted publicly to her FB page, and even then only in close circles I trust.

I'm a believer that oversharing is a problem.

I have learned a lot from this forum on how to stay safe but this was one topic that has not been addressed and hence my question.

I have heard that if a cop is asked if they are a cop and they lie then it becomes entrapment and it can be used against them should things get to that point and this is the reason many escorts ask this question as part of their screening process.

In Breaking Bad the cops in trying to nail Badger (one of Jesse Pinkman's pals) tell him that the US Constitution states that a cop must answer this question honestly poor Badger believes it and proceeds to sell meth to the cop!

So what is the truth?

[QUOTE=PghGuy2005;2561790]I have learned a lot from this forum on how to stay safe but this was one topic that has not been addressed and hence my question.

I have heard that if a cop is asked if they are a cop and they lie then it becomes entrapment and it can be used against them should things get to that point and this is the reason many escorts ask this question as part of their screening process.

In Breaking Bad the cops in trying to nail Badger (one of Jesse Pinkman's pals) tell him that the US Constitution states that a cop must answer this question honestly poor Badger believes it and proceeds to sell meth to the cop!

So what is the truth?[/QUOTE]Yeah, there are plenty of "curbstone attorneys" (knowitalls) around that think they know the answer to these questions and lots of misunderstanding out there as "common knowledge!" Now I might just qualify for aforementioned title?

I dunno the exact answer and with anything that has to do with the law some of it is written as laws passed by a legislature and some of the "law" evolves from judges decisions as "case law. " So established "norms" it CAN vary from state to state. The law is a tricky thing. While there are general guidelines, any attorney will tell you each case is different and unique and it is often hard to give hard-fast rules: too many nuances. This is why there is a legal profession: people who know or can find these nuances and how they apply to each person's unique set of facts.

That said, I think asking a cop if he / she is a cop and relying on that is stupid and gives false comfort. Anyone who has watched an episode of two of Law & Order knows that cops CAN (and do lie) to a suspect.

Again, ask a lawyer, but I believe an element required to be "entrapped" is that LE coerces / entices / induces one into doing something criminal that they normally would not do. So if a girl is standing on the corner (loitering) in a known drug area in skimpy clothes and waving to cars as they go by what is the inference on what she is doing or intends or "normally" would do? We still have no way to read ones mind and decipher intent, but a cop, prosecutor or jury might make reasonable assumptions (rightly or wrongly) about that. So if one is in an area reasonably known as an area where prostitutes hang out, and one is cruising looking at the girls. What is a reasonable assumption about what you intended or what you might normally do?

So IMHO, it is better to take the reasonable precautions outlined in posts on this site over relying on one thing to save one's bacon. Er, as it were!

But if one has gotten so far as to be arguing entrapment then one is well into the legals system with lawyers, judges and prosecutors. (one isn't going to argue entrapment with an arresting LE & win. At that point one is talking to LE and likely saying stupid stuff that incriminates them self.) Seems like taking precautions that avoid getting that far into the system are more prudent than trying to mount an entrapment defense.

The answer is yes, they can lie their ass off and will to get you to say anything that will help get a conviction. A significant portion of them will go on and lie through there teeth at trial too. The later is done, even though it is not legal to commit perjury. The former, is not illegal and is a taught interrogation technique.

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2560936]I would probably do all my talking through a lawyer.[/QUOTE]You actually have to say one thing, you are required to request an attorney. Funny as it may sound, remaining silent is not the same as asserting your right to remain silent.

[QUOTE=Beachesnole02;2561898]You actually have to say one thing, you are required to request an attorney. Funny as it may sound, remaining silent is not the same as asserting your right to remain silent.[/QUOTE]I would just throw a wadded up business card with my lawyers number on it onto the floor, and let them work the technicalities out. lol

[QUOTE=PghGuy2005;2561790]
So what is the truth?[/QUOTE]The truth is nothing you see in a fictional show is to be taken seriously, and less than one percent of what you see in reality shows can be believed.

Looking for anonymity from the the SO and Hackers (ashley madison).

[QUOTE=JeezLizard;2560939]Every prepaid card or phone has in effect what is a serial number uniquely identifying it. If LE came looking for video footage, it only takes a few minutes to see the exact time and date and at which register # that card was sold at (even if they pay in cash). Then they are about 2 more minutes away from retrieving the archived digital video clip showing the customer and the clerk performing the transaction, usually in high definition and at multiple angles.

That is, at least at any Walmart / BestBuy or reasonably modern place. Some of the video surveillance systems are sophisticated enough that they can do it in one step -- type in the serial # of the item and watch the video, all in seconds. I'm sure if you bought a prepaid card at a small no-name gas station or store where the owner doesn't keep his cameras working, then it could be harder of course. But good camera systems are cheap and easy these days and even the rural no-name stores usually have them in good working order. It might take a little longer to find when the card was sold, but they have less records to sort through as well so in most cases the video would be readily available if LE really wanted it.

Again though I wouldn't sweat this at all as an SD. Hopefully nobody is doing anything shady enough to have a need for that level of anonymity. It's good enough for hiding transactions from the wife.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Telcova;2561997]Looking for anonymity from the the SO and Hackers (ashley madison).[/QUOTE]I'd probably get an inexpensive gift card to try it and see if it works before spending more.

Does AM have forums of their own? Maybe you could find out there what is working for other AM users. Some of that comes down to how the website in question processes the cards.

I would think AM has a strong interest in helping you stay as anonymous as possible, as long as they get their money, particularly after the recent hacking scandal.