Seems like grounds for blacklisting, and for breaking a thing ... or two.
So I have heard from a few girls about hobbyists doing hidden cameras to record time together unknown to the girl. Seems kind of sleezy but maybe just my opinion.
So for hobbyists is this okay behavior.
So for girls is this something often seen. how do you deal with this type of behavior?
looking for thoughts from both sides.
Seems like grounds for blacklisting, and for breaking a thing ... or two.
... get naked ASAP. 
I know some providers who take care to hang up or neatly fold the client's clothes after they're removed. I always thought that was a nice touch; very considerate. But it could have other benefits as well.
Of course, in an outcall situation it could be very difficult to detect.
But... KIND of sleazy?? Try absolutely positively incredibly SLEAZY.
Taking of videos, pictures, etc should only be done with the agreement of all parties involved.
Consent is mandatory in any sexual situation. Filming someone without their knowledge means you didn't ask for their consent.
Yes. Sex needs to be consensual. Period. End of story.
Totally unrelated is recording. Minnesota is a one-party consent state, so if one party of the conversation consents to recording it, it is legal. What one does with that recording, however, could be actionable. So if I am having a conversation with you, either you or I can record the conversation without the other person's consent. A third party could not record it.
Ok..... as usual, with the law, there are exclusions. Like you cannot record in certain places where privacy is expected, i.e., bathroom, locker room, etc. You need to exercise caution. You can legally, for example, record conversations with your boss, but if that violates corporate policy, you can be fired and have no recourse. The old adage.... just because it's legal doesn't mean you should do it applies.
As always, situations are different. Do not consider this to be legal advice. My personal advice is to not record your sexual liaisons unless there is mutual agreement.
Here is a kicker for you.....
Is in the bedroom considered apart of "privacy". Or is sexual interaction considered "privacy".
I think that is where this all falls in line.
But like you mentioned.... you can record it but can you "share" it!!!
Actually I didn't need to ask because I know not right to record without consent.
Reason I brought this up is twofold. 1. A provider friend believes she was recorded unknowingly where privacy was expected and doesn't know what to do so I was hoping to get insight from more experienced providers.
2. The person suspected is a TER member so I hope people reinforce that it is unacceptable behavior so maybe this person reconsiders.
Like someone else mentioned if you don't get consent to film it is against the law.
Now I know we are in the hobby and that isn't legal. But if you make a recording with out consent. The person is UTR and has a big time professional occupation and gets fired because that film gets out on the net. I would say they would want to come back at you and make you pay!!
MN is a one-party consent law. So depending on circumstances, it could be very legal. Sleazy, yes. But could be legal.
I recently had a lady mention this. She asked me to undress in the bathroom. Didn't bother me a bit and if it makes her feel safer she is more fun to interact with. bigdell
for anyone to do and I have heard this being done by both parties.
There are ladies that allow that kind of thing and guy should seek them out if that is what they want. Ladies could probably find guys that would approve, but I am guessing their motives might be different.
There is a well known reviewer who takes videos, pictures, all that of providers. Then he will give himself up in reviews and admits that sometimes the girls know, sometimes they don't. Well now they do dude so too late for that.
completely inappropriate to video or take pictures of someone without their consent. this would be tough to accomplish in a hotel situation. sounds more likely done at someone's home or apt!
I was thinking the same thing... There's the Gawker case (140 mills) and the Erin Andrews case (27 month in the slammer + 55 mills from the hotel) would hopefully serve as recent reminders that this could go really, really, really bad for you.
I imagine in the case of a hobbyist videotaping a provider without her consent, the hobbyist is counting on the provider not wanting to take it to court because it would mean the provider outs herself.
The hobbyist would be outting himself. I.e., if it were a case, hypothetically, of course, where it was pay-to-play, he would have created prima facia evidence that he engaged in a criminal act. An LE dream come true.
But you are correct, I believe. The guy is probably banking on the provider not wanting to be "outted." Problem is that he's not thinking a step or two ahead by realizing he's outing himself. What a sleaze ball to play on a woman's fears like that.
There is a difference in a "criminal" law suit..... and "civil" law suit.
So lets say that they both are "outed". Well they will both get a criminal charge against them. But now in a civil law suit. Where lets say that the provider lost a job because of the vid. Now she can go after that John.
Lets say that job was an $80,000 a year job. Now she is working a $20,000 a year job because she got fired!! A judge will make the John who taped the vid. (even if the state is a single consent state).... because you shared something that was a detriment to someone elses life.
Then it becomes the opinion of the court if what happens in an intimate setting is considered "private".... which is protected under even in a "singe consent state".
Yes, of course there is a HUGE difference between criminal and civil proceedings.
Criminal charge: Charges possible but not a slam dunk. Defense could poke lots of holes. To be honest, I am not sure any DA would bring charges under the circumstances if the video showed consensual activity. For example, arguments could be made that the activity was recorded with mutual understanding/agreement and that it was just a show or exhibition- not for pay, etc. Now one of the parties is angry. Chain of evidence, etc. Too many holes, I think, for a DA to pursue. If what was recorded showed activity that was clearly against one's will.. then I think it would be a whole different matter. And it should be.
Civil litigation: In this case, the petitioner (provider) would have no standing against the client. It was a consensual act. How can it be detrimental if she willingly participated? She was providing a service for money. Just because she didn't want her "real" employer to find out doesn't mean the client is responsible for her behavior. If she is engaging in activities that her "real" employer can terminate her for, then it is her responsibility to not engage in such activities. Recall the doctor not too long ago who was very drunk and assaulted a Uber (or similar) driver? She was eventually fired by the hospital. People just can't pick and choose what activities are made public- in most cases. And if the activity is consensual (i.e., willing participants), they helped created the detrimental conduct.
Most employment is "at will." Meaning one can be fired (terminated) for any reason, and any employee can quit at any time for any reason. If one has an actual employment contract, then there is probably a morals clause in that contract that would allow the company to dismiss an employee for cause. The provider could bring action against her "real" employer for wrongful termination, but I am not sure that would be successful. Probably summarily dismissed.
Now your "civil" argument.... I agree that since P4P wasn't shown or what ever here..... and the act of intimacy was consensual..... but the taping wasn't!! That is where the Civil case is what would happen.
Especially if the said taping caused any "harm" to the individual.... ie: loss of employment, shame, etc.
Because the "spy" cam is a huge issue and secret recordings. Even in Single consent states like MN.
Why do you think many big companies that operate in MN have the.... This conversation my be recorded for quality purposes. They have that disclaimer so everyone knows what is going and so no civil or criminal litigation can come back at them.
Privacy from a lawyers webpage.....
"Expectation of Privacy – A person can be charged with a misdemeanor offense if they record an individual in an area “where a reasonable person would have the expectation of privacy.” Exactly what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy is up for debate, but generally speaking, if a person is likely to disrobe in this location, there is an expectation of privacy. This means places like a bedroom, bathroom, tanning booths, and changing rooms are off limit. Simply being in a car (or police vehicle) is not considered an area where there is an expectation of privacy."
So with that being said..... anything in a "bedroom" setting would be under the privacy issue....
CASE CLOSED.
...desire to beat your chest and act like you know what you're talking about. I don't know if you play a lawyer on TV, but if you do in real life, I sure hope all you do is defend parking tickets. Holy shit.
Sorry.... but NOT case closed. Notice that you have to go digging around to different websites to try to support your position but I do not??? What does that suggest??
(This is a perfect example of just how dangerous the Internet can be. Do you also give medical advice because you happened to find some medical verbiage online to quote?)
If a person is with another in the setting described, there goes your expectation of privacy. And did you notice the "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the part of being up for debate in your copy/paste? That HARDLY implies case closed.
The discussion in this post is about someone secretly recording a consensual act without the other person knowing it is being recorded. What you happened to find online and copy/paste refers to invasion of privacy (Interference with privacy). This is like where someone hides a camera in a bathroom or bedroom, etc to catch people when they are alone. THAT is a CRIME.... what a lay person refers to as a Peeping Tom.
And for God's sake... the link you provided is a fricking ad for a law firm. It is NOT from the MN statutes. It is not advice. It is not the law. So it is NOT case closed.
So here are some ideas: 1. Brush up on the MN statutes- especially Interference with Privacy (609.746) 2. Go to law school. 3. Save your advice and case closed comments for topics you might know about. Otherwise, you merely look like a fool as you try to impress.
Loveyourtouch.... ARE YOU A LAWYER???
Plus you are talking "Criminal" law. I am talking civil law. Many cases get thrown out of criminal court and then the people get hammered in civil court..... think OJ Simpson.
Now again.... in a civil court setting.
Just because an act is consensual.... THE ACT OF SEX. This still is an act of that many considered "private". So recording a "private" act especially when "privacy" is implicated by it being done in a bedroom. Which is again a "protected" place considered in the "single consent" states.
I hope you see what I am getting at. A "PRIVATE" act is being done in a "PRIVATE" setting. Hence it is considered private. Which then would need consent to record the "PRIVATE ACT" between two people.
Here is the thing.....
Take this to court and see what a judge or a jury will think. Will they think that a person has reasonable feeling of privacy in the bedroom. even if someone else is there. Lets say a husband was taping his wife undressing with out her knowledge? Even while he was in the room. Or a husband taping a sexual act with his wife without her knowledge? Would a judge and jury let the husband off?
There are many documented cases where college kids have taped having sex with a girl in the room without her knowledge. The sex was consensual but the act of taping wasn't. Again people have a "privacy" issue when it comes to sex. People consider it a "private" act between two people. So again.... put in front of a judge and you will see what the outcome will be.... in a CIVIL COURT.
YOur comment of: The discussion in this post is about someone secretly recording a consensual act without the other person knowing it is being recorded. What you happened to find online and copy/paste refers to invasion of privacy (Interference with privacy).
This does in fact have to deal with this discussion. You say it is an ad. Yes it was.... but many lawyers give "advice" in ads. This also talks about how the "bedroom" is considered a place where reasonable privacy should be expected. So even if an act is consensual it took place in a private setting. The act is also considered to be a private act between two people.
You see the act itself is considered a PRIVATE act. Then it also took place in a "PRIVATE" setting (the bedroom)
And the more you write the more you prove it. So do us all a favor and PLEASE stop grabbing at straws. Just give it up, OK?
There is a HUGE difference between a corporation recording a call and an individual doing so. As the recording states, it is for quality purposes. But it can get MUCH messier than that. Many companies operate across state lines, so the federal statutes come into play as do laws in all states. Therefore, in order to streamline their own processes and comply with multiple laws, companies will abide by the strictest laws. In this case, that would be all-party consent. If you're in MN but dial-in to a call center in FL, which law governs? Or vice-versa? Starting to understand why companies do this? Not to mention, there are numerous ambulance-chasing lawyers around who will sue large companies at the drop of a hat. So, unfortunately, in this litigious society, companies put their own "warning labels" on pretty much everything they do to prevent as much litigation as they can.
And back to your first point... once again.. there would be no civil case in this matter. Get over it. CASE DISMISSED!
Wrong... big time civil case.
many cases where college kids get sued for video taping sexual acts. The acts were consensual but the taping wasn't. goes to civil court and a $ amount is awarded
Cite a case for me. Give the citation.... please
You are smart enough to use google search.
Because when I use it you go off the handle.
Go look for yourself.
But there are cases out there.
Beyond that, yes indeed there are a lot of sleazy idiots who don't think through the possible consequences of what they do.
1. Erin Andrews. That case was centered around a criminal action. The perp invaded her privacy by recording through a rigged peephole. The civil suit that awarded millions was because the hotel didn't protect ms. Andrews' expectation of privacy.
2. Hulk Hogan. Florida is a 2-party/all parties consent state. The video was made by a third party - her husband (if I recall), who was supposedly Hulk ' s friend. (Nice friend, hulk.... porking your friend's wife). The award in this case was for the publication of the video.
These cases are rarely clear-cut, so my personal advice is to get consent or do not share if you decide to record. Better yet.... just don't do it.
...we could get zasu knight to visit. no spying needed.
http://planetzasu.com/wp/?page_id=190
-- Modified on 6/1/2016 10:56:43 AM
yes please bring her to MN.... 
For the Hobbyist..... NOT OK. Unless you get the approval of the lady.
For the girls.... If they do it for safety reasons.... I understand....but it better be deleted ASAP after meeting.
Imagine this.... after the goings back and forth above, I do agree with one of your points.
I agree that hobbyists should not record without consent. To me, that is just common courtesy and the way I am. (But I would never record or agree to be recorded because if I ever saw it, I would probably be so embarrassed and disgusted that I would be scarred for life and a part of me just might not ever function properly again. Thank goodness for light switches and shades!)
I do, however, see it differently than you with respect to women recording. I believe the same standards should apply to hobbyists and providers alike.
1. Safety is a 2-way street. A guy can be robbed, threatened, or blackmailed as easily as a woman can be harmed. Each time a hobbyist or provider goes to an unknown location or sees a new "connection," there is an inherent and increased risk. The risk mitigates as they get to know each other on future "dates," but there is always some level of risk in the hobby.
2. Who owns or controls the recording? How does one know it has been deleted? And deleted doesn't always mean it has been deleted.... if you know what I mean. Moved to recycle bin where it can be retrieved? Empty recycle bin but still traces on hard drive? Recorded to a thumb drive? Is it destroyed??? Too many variables and unknowns for me in this scenario
I never said it was OK for the escort to record..... I said... I understand if they do.
I don't think either should record the encounter. But I understand if an escort does for the sake of safety. Not for the fear of theft.... but the violence that can take place. But again a can of pepper spray, a .38 or knife can put a stop to that as well.
I agree that nothing is ever deleted completely
Being discreet and respecting one another's privacy applies to both providers and hobbyists. Secretly recording hobbyists is no more acceptable than secretly recording providers.
you visit well reviewed & respected providers for outcall & DON'T try to secretly recordl if you do incall.
"well reviewed & respected" either way doesn't say anything other than he or she has played and ain't an uncle LEO at that time...if you think "well reviewed & respected" means you aren't in for a world of hurt on the safety side either short or long term...well I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to take a look at...it's for sale.
Old bongwater is at again.....I mearly stated that the thred problem was less likely with a well reviewed provider...Because this type of behavior would ruin her business & her reputation & as far as that bridge go's bong how much did you pay for it.
Double standards never work.