OPSEC. Operattional Security

[RogerOver]

If two women are doing doubles together, as in threesomes for $$ and one of them posts an ad for the two of them. Then that woman can be prosecuted for "sex trafficking". I think that says it all.

Personally, I know of at least one case where a single woman used in threesomes was in fact held against her will, so that would be an accurate charge. My point is, that can and has happened.

And looks like another one of my messages on here was deleted, but the main point is that Bill Gates and other guys (who didn't have sex with anyone under 18) should have used private communications, rather than insecure email and they wouldn't have their lives ruined now by the mob of retards with pitchforks.

I think the jury is still out on that assumption of yours. I haven't seen anything that exonerated Bill Gates and "other guys". Tell us, why would some of the worlds richest men continue to hang around with a known pedo?

[Peter Johnson]

Not all prostitution-related activity = trafficking.

If two women are doing doubles together, as in threesomes for $$ and one of them posts an ad for the two of them. Then that woman can be prosecuted for "sex trafficking". I think that says it all.

And looks like another one of my messages on here was deleted, but the main point is that Bill Gates and other guys (who didn't have sex with anyone under 18) should have used private communications, rather than insecure email and they wouldn't have their lives ruined now by the mob of retards with pitchforks.

And yes of course true pedos, people who prey on girls or boys (not young women or young men) should be imprisoned forever, if not summarily executed. We all agree about that.

But for everyone else not doing anything morally wrong, using regular email (or SMS), is just not very safe.

[RogerOver]

Not all prostitution-related activity = trafficking. Yet, for LE and their accomplices in the media, it's completely in their interests to portray it 100% as trafficking. Anyone whose name, email, or phone number is found to be connected with an agency or individual provider, no matter how slightly or tangentially, is deemed to be a legitimate target. And, once deemed to be a legitimate target, even if criminal charges are never filed, your life is considered fair game for naming and shaming and otherwise bringing to complete ruin!

Similarly, Epstein has already been adjudged to have been a pedophile and a child-trafficker. So, for most whose names materialize in his files, their guilt is already assumed, facts be damned! Sure, there might be some nuances involved, such as minimal contact prior to Epstein's conviction may get a pass, but it's clearly a case of "guilty until proven innocent" for most. And the same consequences of being a "legitimate target" inevitably follow: Naming, shaming, and a ruined life!

This is all completely outside of the subject of this thread, but OK. Personally, I believe if you were stupid enough to maintain a friendship with Epstein after his original conviction, then yeah. You're condoning and even endorsing his behavior, and I can see how that would be perceived negatively by the public. Not to mention these high profile people were fucking monumentally stupid to write the shit they did in emails and text messages.

[JmSuttr]

Not all prostitution-related activity = trafficking. Yet, for LE and their accomplices in the media, it's completely in their interests to portray it 100% as trafficking. Anyone whose name, email, or phone number is found to be connected with an agency or individual provider, no matter how slightly or tangentially, is deemed to be a legitimate target. And, once deemed to be a legitimate target, even if criminal charges are never filed, your life is considered fair game for naming and shaming and otherwise bringing to complete ruin!

Similarly, Epstein has already been adjudged to have been a pedophile and a child-trafficker. So, for most whose names materialize in his files, their guilt is already assumed, facts be damned! Sure, there might be some nuances involved, such as minimal contact prior to Epstein's conviction may get a pass, but it's clearly a case of "guilty until proven innocent" for most. And the same consequences of being a "legitimate target" inevitably follow: Naming, shaming, and a ruined life!

[Peter Johnson]

I don't use agencies because I refuse to give them any PII. So, while I don't know any details about Elite Model's specific practices, it's probably a good idea for clients of that agency to review their personal situations.

Yeah, that's a non starter, to provide my personal info and drivers license, if any kind of possible illegal activities (depending on jurisdiction) are on tap.

But a lot of horny dudes don't care, and fair enough, because very few of them eventually suffer negative consequences from doing so. However too risky for me (even though I will BBFS, which certainly has a level of risk as well.

[Proflou2019]

Is this legit?

https://youtube.com/shorts/tq0gOWFM_...8Rz4oyhmwG2GN8

Yes, Palantir (and Flock Safety) are pervasive and a massive privacy risk, and NOT just for us mongers.

A more extensive dive:

https://youtu.be/xXgbBJ1aT-o?si=W1wWyC1UvON__yY1

Lou.

[PixelsAndGrids]

Is this legit?

https://youtube.com/shorts/tq0gOWFM_...8Rz4oyhmwG2GN8

[JmSuttr]

In the past few days there have been a few posts reporting that the Elite Models Agency was busted. There was some back and forth discussion in which at least one monger confirmed he had also heard about the bust, while others said they'd been told the agency website was unavailable because they were switching servers.

Then this was posted, which seems to push the dial pretty strongly in the "bust" direction: https://www.usasexguide.nl/forum/sho...=1#post7526989.

(Start quote) Spoke with the owner of a local agency. Here's the quote I got from them.

"Several girls told me. Their friends were arrested in the apartment and neighbors complained. It's not in the news for some reason. It's a municipal bust. (End quote).

I don't use agencies because I refuse to give them any PII. So, while I don't know any details about Elite Model's specific practices, it's probably a good idea for clients of that agency to review their personal situations.

[Member #7114]

There are quite a few misconceptions in this thread. Let me clear up a few as it pertains to iPhones. Androids are a different beast and you should assume no privacy on an android.

If you have the latest iOS installed on a newer model (last couple of recent years), the encryption cannot be cracked at this time. Period. If the phone is locked, biometrics turned off, and Advanced Data Protection is turned on for icloud backups, you are safe. Point blank. Once upon a time your icloud backups were vulnerable and Apple would access to respond to subpoenas, but with the introduction of ADP that is no longer the case.

However, iOS encryption is a game of cat and mouse with some cybertech firms (Cellebrite, Grayshift, etc) developing methods to crack older iOS and older phones. This is what happened a few years ago when the FBI was trying to get into the deceased mass shooter's phone out in San Bernardine. Apple refused to create a backdoor, the FBI eventually got into the phone via Cellebrite. If the government and NSA had some all seeing, omnipotent way of knowing what was on every phone at all times then none of this would have been necessary. Meaning, iOS protections are indeed legit and can thwart even the US government if used correctly.

Where it gets dicey is even though a new iphone with the latest iOS can't be cracked today, it likely can in the future. What LEO can do is clone your phone in a few minutes. This is common, cheap, and easy for most local law enforcement departments when given reason. The clone they have is locked by encryption. If it is a serious case, they can literally wait years until the encryption method is developed and then access the cloned data at that time. For the average monger, this is above and beyond any reasonable fear.

[Peter Johnson]

The Court held that the warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the purposes of protecting officer safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data. The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network and placing the phone in a "Faraday bag. ""

I bought a faraday bag for my phone and key fob a few years ago, but have never really used them. With the phone, it probably just works to switch it off, if you don't want potentially GPS tracking.

Anyway I don't care that much what is legal vs illegal, because the NSA already proved that they have no problem with illegal snooping and searching. The Supreme Court ruled it was (obviously) illegal, but that unlikely changed anything.

But I get your point that it does affect what evidence they can use in a trial against you. But I would prefer it not even get to where they have data that they have accessed, legally, or otherwise. However, it is a significant part of the entire equation, for sure.

[Mike85]

Riley v. California, the USA Supreme Court 9-0 against searches, but did not eliminate all exceptions to protections under the 4th amendment.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court held that the warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the purposes of protecting officer safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data. The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network and placing the phone in a "Faraday bag. " The Court characterized cell phones as minicomputers filled with massive amounts of private information, which distinguished them from the traditional items that can be seized from an arrestee's person, such as a wallet. The Court also held that information accessible via the phone but stored using "cloud computing" is not even "on the arrestee's person. " Nonetheless, the Court held that some warrantless searches of cell phones might be permitted in an emergency: when the government's interests are so compelling that a search would be reasonable. "

https://constitution.findlaw.com/ame...otation06.html

Courts generally recognize six exceptions to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, exigent circumstances being one of them. However, as the article and case citations make clear, compliance with the Constitution is the default and expected position. Any deviation from that is subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. In fact, since numerous cases of this type have been adjudicated over the years, it's safe to say that most circumstances that are claimed to be exigent have probably already been reviewed and ruled on. Which means, unless a prosecutor is claiming a kind of exigency that already has substantial support in case law, they are likely shit out of luck.

Also (from the article), with respect to the various exceptions, digital information has been addressed:

"However, this doctrine does not allow officers to search an arrestee's digital information, such as a cell phone or computer, without a warrant. The Court found in Riley v. California that digital evidence does not pose the same threat to officer safety as a weapon. Additionally, the concern regarding the destruction of evidence is less immediate, given the seizure of electronic devices..

[JmSuttr]

https://constitution.findlaw.com/ame...otation06.html

Courts generally recognize six exceptions to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, exigent circumstances being one of them. However, as the article and case citations make clear, compliance with the Constitution is the default and expected position. Any deviation from that is subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. In fact, since numerous cases of this type have been adjudicated over the years, it's safe to say that most circumstances that are claimed to be exigent have probably already been reviewed and ruled on. Which means, unless a prosecutor is claiming a kind of exigency that already has substantial support in case law, they are likely shit out of luck.

Also (from the article), with respect to the various exceptions, digital information has been addressed:

"However, this doctrine does not allow officers to search an arrestee's digital information, such as a cell phone or computer, without a warrant. The Court found in Riley v. California that digital evidence does not pose the same threat to officer safety as a weapon. Additionally, the concern regarding the destruction of evidence is less immediate, given the seizure of electronic devices. ".

In other words, once LE has seized an electronic device, there's nothing keeping them from maintaining possession until such time as they can get a warrant. The only scenario I can think of that would change the calculus would be if there was something on the phone right now that was a legit matter of life and death. For example, let's take the current case of the celebrity's mother who's been kidnapped. If LE arrested a suspect, or person of interest, they could articulate an argument that data on the phone could point to the location of the abducted (who may be in grave danger) and therefore a warrantless search was justified. I would totally buy that argument, and I think most judges would also.

But, unless a LEO has something that rises to that level, or has already been found valid in prior cases, their argument is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

[CuriousVaMan]

I stumbled across this site which might be of interest to some of you. It discusses Flock LPRs and provides a map of self-reported Flock locations. FYI.

https://deflock.org/

[Mike85]

The exigent circumstances doctrine can create an exception to the 4th amendment. And the circumstance they would cite seems obvious.

I'll leave the technical details of data extraction to others, but the one ironclad requirement for anything submitted to a court for consideration is that it complies with the rules of evidence. And chief among those is the requirement that evidence be lawfully acquired. LE can get some information from your phone company via subpoena. But it's safe to say that the kind of information contained on the device itself (even if backed up in the cloud) will require a search warrant. Of course, if someone gives consent then they're royally screwed!

And every piece of evidence submitted in a criminal trial requires a witness to take the stand and testify as to the provenance of that evidentiary item. The only exception to that requirement is when both prosecution and defense stipulate that neither of them intend to challenge or dispute the item. That doesn't happen often and would be highly unlikely with something as sensitive as phone data.

No paper = no evidence. That information might be usable in other ways, ethical or unethical, but not in court. And, since warrants and GJ subpoenas are used only in felony scenarios, staying on the misdemeanor side of the fence (ex. Indies) gives you maximum protection.

[Mike85]

Exigent circumstances doctrine as a fourth amendment exception.

I'll leave the technical details of data extraction to others, but the one ironclad requirement for anything submitted to a court for consideration is that it complies with the rules of evidence. And chief among those is the requirement that evidence be lawfully acquired. LE can get some information from your phone company via subpoena. But it's safe to say that the kind of information contained on the device itself (even if backed up in the cloud) will require a search warrant. Of course, if someone gives consent then they're royally screwed!

And every piece of evidence submitted in a criminal trial requires a witness to take the stand and testify as to the provenance of that evidentiary item. The only exception to that requirement is when both prosecution and defense stipulate that neither of them intend to challenge or dispute the item. That doesn't happen often and would be highly unlikely with something as sensitive as phone data.

No paper = no evidence. That information might be usable in other ways, ethical or unethical, but not in court. And, since warrants and GJ subpoenas are used only in felony scenarios, staying on the misdemeanor side of the fence (ex. Indies) gives you maximum protection.