Why?

What does it violate that cannot be found in public domain?

It described what methods were used to charge mongers, and what methods could be used for others to avoid being caught in the same manner.

Most importantly, it outlined a precedent where giving up pii info to an org led directly to mongers being charged.

 
And it's all gutted and thrown in the trash?

We can discuss the case, but have to be careful about the sources we use.

And it’s generally frowned upon on TER to attach names on a post or if names are mentioned in a attachment  
My guess

So if a link mentions names, it's a no-go?
So we have to fish for links that don't have names?

Weird policy but I guess it is what it is.

Not true. We won’t know how PII provided to the agencies by mongers factored in until the next round of court dates.All we know at this point is that law enforcement had access to the text exchanges between the mongers and the agency operators.Another article said the police identified the men when they showed up for scheduled appointments, indicating to us that police had some sort of a warrant that gave them access to the messages before the agency was busted. Again, we will know more when court papers are filed and open to the public at the next round of hearings.

It literally said they matched their rmv photo with surveillance video.  

What is your interpretation of "rmv photo" and where do you think they got these photos from?

RMV is Massachusetts' version of DMV - i.e., they matched their driver's license photos to the surveillance pictures.  

Given they don't say they collected the RMV photos from the agency records I would think getting them from the State RMV database is as likely as anything else, and given the image quality would be higher easier for matching. Your take seems to be that all these well educated, affluent, highly positioned and presumably intelligent people just all handed over their PII and that is why they were caught.

 
Seems odd to think that the most active mongers are the stupidest ones in terms of protecting their personal interests. I would give them more credit and think they would be the ones who looked to protect themselves a bit more and likely would have had less need to provide any PII give the number of references they would have to offer.

My question was posed to cks.

It's their driver license, and how would the feds get their drivers license if not via pii info that was attached to the Johns' number at the org?

One report, read literally, says all but 1 person were found by linking text messages to the agency with the identity of the person whose phone number texted the agency.

Rocket postes a link that literally says in the video that the guy's number was matched with a passport database.  

So seems they got people using either a) real-life phone numbers or b)  giving pii.

Based on the reporting, I don't think there is another conclusion.

(And why do you, CKS, confidently spew BS where you have no knowledge??)

Based on your conclusion, I don’t think you know what the fuck you are talking about. The reality of the information presented to date doesn’t support that your conclusion can be correct. It won’t be until the next round of hearings, now that probable cause has been established, that the press will have access to the charging documents. Those hearings are tentatively scheduled for May.

Ok, let's say they got it from state rmv database. What is this technicality bullshit?

How would they know who to look for in the state rmv database? Oh right, by using pii from agency records..

You can't even say they could use face recognition tech because even though they had surveillance they still had to match them.  

They took 400+ texters and then had to match their dls to surveillance in order to have evidence. How would they do this if phones were fake and there were no pii info? Do tell.  

 

I don't understand your endgame here and why you're grasping at straws.

I don't believe youre petty enough to simply don't want me to be right about this.
Are you concerned that there will be less business for kgirl orgs and thus result in worse talent?

Or maybe you're concerned that by refusing to provide pii the agencies will have to do more lax screening which will result in many more bad actors visiting? But wouldn't it be in mongers self-interests to choose bad actors possibly doing bad things  over the possibility of getting arrested?

 
" Your take seems to be that all these well educated, affluent, highly positioned and presumably intelligent people just all handed over their PII and that is why they were caught.
"  

You're acting like affluent people are super smart people when it comes to paying for pussy. How many athletes and actors etc. have impregnated strippers?  

These people in order to understand how to get Korean pussy go to the same websites as we do.  

And what do they see? People who say "oh no its totally safe to provide your pii to orgs" "there was no precedent"..  

 
Now there is a clear precedent and you want to sweep it under the rug. Why? I don't get it.

You, nor I or likely anyone here, knows what was don't to match the surveillance and the DL pics. Perhaps they did have get those images after the initial arrests and seizing phones and computers. Was that ever mentioned?

 
Now, they were investigating for a couple of years, I and seem to recall that during the investigation, before the arrest, some number of customers were interest and confessed. If so, LE had the phone number of the agencies (not that they needed that as it's generally posted on the website and not all agencies take initial contact on that number then provide all the scheduling details on some alternative number not listed on the site). They also have the surveillance information from during that investigation (I assume you won't dispute that LE is not going to wait until after the 3 got arrested to try getting that they of information).  

 
With the call logs they can easily count up the appointments related to any number -- burner or not -- match that to dates an times and the images in the surveillance tapes. Then matching back to the DL database (without ever having seen a pic of a drivers license since they had not arrested anyone or seized phones or computers) to identify the person. I get not of this is really rocket science but I would think you don't need to be spoon fed this.

 
But why are you arguing with me about sweeping anything under the rug. I'm not, not have I ever, telling anyone to give out any PII they don't want to. *I'm telling them that even if they hide all of that they can get caught.* Everyone needs to take a good look at just the worst case scenario for them really represents -- is getting caught going to ruin your future or just be someone of the speedbump or even a minor inconvenience -- and then consider if this is something they should be doing.

"Perhaps they did have get those images after the initial arrests and seizing phones and computers"

 
What images? What are you talking about? I don't get any of your post. I'm trying to say that identification info of those people who are in court came directly from the orgs pii info.  

 
Let's do this again because it's so fucking simple. We have had three new pieces of information which we will assume are all truthful as reported by the press.

 
1. Only prolific texters were arrested. It's unclear whether it was the amount of texts or number of appointments. 400 appointments with the same org feels like a lot.

2. There were rmv photos of suspects

3. The photos were matched to the surveillance vods

 

I think it's very obvious, and beyond even occams razor that the path of least resistance and most logical way to do this is the following.

Step zero. Setup surveillance video and collect footage.  

Step one. Confiscate POs phone (which the press did say they have done)

Step two. Filter all people with 400+ texts to that number

Step three. Find information of those specific people, including appointment times.  

Step four. Match the information in step three to surveillance footage from step 0

 
Now tell me, if pii information is right there, why do anything else for step three?

 
Conversely let's use example of myself who never provided any real pii and only references.

These guys see my name and all it says is Steve ( ter mods this is a fake made up first name, please don't dlt thread mkay thx)  

The number may be a dumb phone burner. Oh shit, they outta luck. Dead end. The number could be a fake number attached to a burner app. Now they have to issue a subpoena to the app company to provide identity. Oh it's attached to a fake Gmail number/account and a rooted phone. Now they have to get subpoena from Google to get that account. Oh that account is a free account created via vpn and has another proxy email behind it. Oh. This is very expensive time consuming and inefficient and ineffective.  

 
So again, what do you think is more likely - they went over each of 30 guys phone numbers getting subpoenas trying to uncover real identities OR they just simply took their names from pii list at the org?

 

 
I'm not trying to argue that you're trying to sweep it under the rug. I just don't have any other explanation. To me it's clear that the pii provided by clients was used against them, and I'm puzzled as to why you are trying to make it seem like it isn't the case.

This is a bad precedent and I do hope it is - like my monger friend said - due to an overzealous agent and the fact they made it an interstate thing and got feds on it.

-- Modified on 3/17/2025 12:57:32 AM

Rocket, go back and reread the original affidavit that was submitted to get the arrest warrants for the 3 charged with the sex trafficking and money laundering. Pay attention to what was said about the identification of clients and then tell me how that occurred before the three were arrested and any PII the agency had on they phones or computers was used. There was clearly surveillance occurring for a couple of years before anyone got arrested and that information.  

 
Why do you keep on insisting that the only possible way to read the news stories is that everyone that got charged was identified using the pictures of their DL they sent in for screening? What's your basis for saying any or all of these 28 were only identified after the bust using those DL pictures that were then matched to the surveillance tapes? Or is the claim that those data were in the hands of the investigators prior to the initial arrests of the 3 running the agency?  

How about
step 1: Get the tip about the locations and setup surveillance
step 2: get call and message logs
step 3: use the call logs to identify possible customers in the surveillance based on appointment times for specific numbers (who cares if it is burner or not)
step 4: use the State RMV database to get license pictures for people that generally match the characteristics of the person in the surveillance tape (approx, height, weight, race) and use basic recognition tools to match on the RMV picture.
step 5: keep collecting enough data to support the probable cause claim when requesting an arrest warrant.
step 6: arrest the 3 primary targets of interest
step 7: use the information collected to make the case in the primary investigation to go after some higher profile customers for the bonus points

Well, in the above LE never needed to get access to the contact list and had already identified a lot of the people they might be interested in. The higher volume guys are clearly generating more images in surveillance to be match to any RMV database images so probably also are  producing a higher likelihood that the match is correct.

Rocket’s scenario is based on multiple hypotheticals and ignores fact patterns laid out in LE affidavits. This is not to say that LE did not use PII in the orgs hands to further investigative leads. But I think it’s clear we won’t have the information to be able to make those determinations until the May hearings are covered in the press.

"step 1: Get the tip about the locations and setup surveillance
step 2: get call and message logs"

How in the fuck do you go from step 1 to step 2?

Get call and messages logs from what???  
From surveillance?
Is this a joke?  

After a tip and setting up surveillance they don't even know what org and phone number they use.

 
Again, my algorithm is clear and simple. Your algorithm is full of assumptions and holes.  

 

"step 4: use the State RMV database to get license pictures for people that generally match the characteristics of the person in the surveillance tape (approx, height, weight, race) and use basic recognition tools to match on the RMV picture."

 
Ah yes. You ACTUALLY think they used facial recognition software and then used it backwards to identify people. Do you know how difficult that is?  

Do you remember the uhc" incident" and how there was a face in plain sight? And yet they couldn't match it to any photo in database? In a nationwide manhunt? But here you make this nonchalant assumption that the feds would use facial recognition to do this with John's? Lol.  

 
You know Jensen, I used to think you were sharp logically and were good in math. Had my suspicions when your unique contact math was so off anyone who knows math at a 10th grade level would point it out. Now I have my doubts that you have a firm understanding of logic. And you worked at a security firm? Sorry for this personal jab, but Jesus Christ I'm losing faith in humanitys ability to do basic math and logic.  

 
You think feds are omnipotent and could get phone number just by a neighbor complain.  

You think they set up surveillance and face recognition and run each of those faces thru. Holy shit.  

 
Once again, I have to ask what's your endgame here?  

You used to think all of these 28 guys were the ones who self incr!M!nated thmsleves. It was nearly as bad as this algorithm you presented to me. What happened to that theory? Did you even admit you were wrong? Lol.

If the feds got call logs, text logs etc of POs phone.

And all of the screening is done via texts.

 
Why in the world wouldn't the feds just take that screening info? It's there in text logs. Unencrypted.

 
Why would they have to bend over backwards and do facial recognition route which often produces false positives, is restricted by law in many states and so forth?
In the state of MA you cannot even use facial recognition unless you have a warrant or probable cause.  

 
Again, instead of following path of least resistance and occcams razor why make up a convoluted path.  

 
A path that to me seems it's made up mostly to soften the accountability of the org and po in this

If they get that in the call logs, and it is a valid State issued license, then no, they only need to match that to the surveillance. Never made the claim that was not possible. But your claim is that all 28 were identified this way. What is you're basis for that as it's not stated in the court hearing information, in the affidavit or in the new reports? For that matter, what the basis for assuming that the high volume guys are only at the one agency in Boston so might not have had plenty of references to offer rather than than PII must have been providing that information? I'm sure sum did, maybe all but as I keep saying that is not going to save anyone when LE starts looking for them.

 
Why keep pushing a line that seems to say "Don't worry about getting busted regardless of what it might cost you. Just don't give out PII and you will be fine."? And that has to be your position for arguing against what I've been saying or you're just arguing with me to argue but actually agree with the main point I am making.

I did not claim all 28 were identified this way. I said the pii given to orgs has been used in some capacity to make these identifications.

 
"Don't worry about getting busted regardless of what it might cost you. Just don't give out PII and you will be fine.""

I have no idea because I never pushed that line.  

What I said is that often in many threads when people ask how safe it is to give out pii info, you and many others have stated that it's safe in terms of law enforcement using that info against you. And cited lack of precedent. Now we have a precedent. So maybe it's time to change the tune?  

 
I never said not giving out pii info somehow fully protects you.  
I'm pretty sure wearing a mask in those two post-covid years would throw a wrench in surveillance footage. There's a reason some bad actors wear masks when they do bad actor things, you know? They are trying to not get caught.  

Wear a mask and a low hat that hides your eyes. Don't look at cameras. Yes, you may attract attention to yourself, but what is better for a monger - some security asshat getting suspicious and at worst case scenario the org gets busted... or your entire career is getting busted.

 
Finally, I'd like to remind you. You had the assumption that all 28 were the ones who talked. I had the theory that these 28 were selected according to some criteria. Now I was wrong about what criteria theyd use. And I admit that them selecting the ones with most text messages as opposed to most appointments or most influence was never going to be on my bingo card. Because it's so.... surface level? Some poor dude might have made the threshold because he and po texted a lot  back and forth.... or at some point they had to text a lot when an elevator broke down or something. Seems like an extremely short sighted random ass criteria.

I think you are as stupid as the parlez-vous-francais Mofo on this board, and that is saying something!

There is literally video on U tube where a senior person from the C-bridge PD reads out their statements of probable cause.

Maybe go watch it? The several I watched - exactly as I said, you dumb-ass.

I took a look at a couple of Utube vid (Ch 5) reporting about the cases, the one on the 14th and the one just held. Nowhere did I hear the officer say they got PII from the agency to match the person to the charges. Did you see something that was clear on that -- and makes the case, or at least gives a strong implication that was how this played out, that only the guys that give PII got picked up?

KYJ doesn’t have an answer to that. What he does have is speculation. The arraignment hearings are due in May, and that’s when we’ll get more complete information.

Reading through this entire thread, emotions obviously running high. They could go after every single person as statute of limitations is 6 years in MA. That being said, they likely won't and will stop after this coming Friday. They will hold a "Hey look, we're doing something" press conference to congratulate themselves and then nothing happens afterwards. The trials (if they even come to that) will be boring and lackluster as these are minor infractions when all is said and done.  

The concern here about probable cause is a bit off the mark. I mean just look at the clerk who is overseeing this entire clown show. She was obviously out to get these men from the start no matter how shoddy the evidence was.

Nothing about these probable cause hearings makes sense. The fed spoke about 'powerful individuals' but they just perp walked a bunch of average Joes who work at average jobs. I get it, some of them were executives, but these companies are small time.

They likely panicked when they realized they had to produce something for the press, and this is their way of washing their hands after making such lavish, embellished claims about who the clientele was.

Funnily enough, the national press seemed to have caught on and stopped bothering to report this. It's just lipstick on a pig.

This is the guy that had to be publicly schooled on this board on what the difference is between a Kgirl and a Korean-American Indie.  If he disputes it, I can post the link.  

Search for "high-end brothel hearings", a video posted six days ago  

At  5:51

They outline exactly what happened.

Literally his words

"a federal warrant was executed on the brothel phone. As a result, sex buyers were identified using analysis of the phone"  

 
Then he mentions a specific phone number and says law enforcement did a base search of the phone and found the subscriber.  

 
HOW can he say it in any more obvious way? He's literally saying this under oath

They used the pii (in this case the number as guy didn't bother to have a burner) from POs phone to identify him. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 
In fact what he describes sounds familiar. Oh that's right that's exactly what I outlined as the algorithm.  

Path of least resistance. Why the fuck would I need to do expensive facial recognition and have possibility of false positives... whereas i can just run through all numbers on the phone and identify legit subscribers right away?

When I said PII I was not thinking someone would limit that to personal phone number.  If that is all they have I get why VA said they are not interested in pursuing charges. Just a phone number, even with the texting, do not put the person AT the location. And lacking evidence putting the person there the "beyond a reasonable doubt" may well get the guy off with a jury. I'm not sure who is going that but something to consider when talking about what evidence was available for bringing charges.

 
Moreover, probably the same guy in your video, or at least the team he worked with, mentioned a bunch of other parts to the investigation to identify -- including matching images from RMV and the surveillance tape, which is what they would need (unless apprehending the guy in the room or walking out the door, or at least out of the building which it seems happened mostly).  The police are not going to do all the manually (even if they do a final manual check) so yes, they will be using image recognition. How fucking fast do all the image search tools work to find either the exact match of some ad pic and a bunch of similar ones (good close some pretty far off)? 2 seconds? (And, but way, one of the lawyers is already making the case that the matching was questionable -- for get the exact phrase but "reasonably consistent is not consistent" -- so clearly working on setting up an argument about quality of evidence and reasonable doubts.)

 
Last, you point to ONE example. You keep on trying to make some weird argument that only makes sense if your claim is going to be that ONLY the people who gave out their real phone number got caught.

 
I would love to actually have the answer to that question be made clear as the cases and reporting continues. I'm not sure we'll get that but you sure as hell are no where close and keep want to make up strawman arguments or weakest interpretation cases to argue against. Why?  

TATTT is why.

Exactly. Another instance of Rocket moving the goalposts when presented with a logical argument.

Lmao. "weakest interpretation". You know, I remember when asked you to outline a concrete criteria and you refused to do so. I should've known that refuting clear words said by a cop under oath would be part of your "interpretation" defense.  

 
Are you really putting on your strict interpretation hat? Are you also trying to redefine what pii means? If a guy is stupid enough to use a real phone number, doesn't make his pii any less of pii.  

As far as your quips about surveillance, once again the identification part is how they get a photo to start with to match. Isn't that straightforward?  

 
What is there to interpret? He literally stated that in the example given, the brothel phone was used to identify the sex buyers. Me pointing to this mere fact is somehow a strawman?  

 
I didn't argue once that ALL buyers were identified using the same tactic. Stop attributing to me what I didn't say. What I said is path of least resistance and low hanging fruit will always be the taken first.  

 
My argument is that pii was used to identity by feds in a raid on a korg. This is a fact. Before you and others claimed that it's perfectly safe to give a korg your pii info as there was no precedent.  

So do you admit there is a precedent now?  
Do you admit that you should at least warn others of it now?  

 
That is not a "weird" argument at all and no, not all cases need to be true for this argument. In fact you need only one to establish precedent. Thats how precedents work.  

 
Or is the truth or monger safety less important to you than safety of orgs (or whatever the reason you still are trying to argue that pii of mongers was not used)?

Literally the cop says "brothel phone was used to identify sex buyers"  and gives an example of HOW someone was identified, by using pii info that was on brothel phone.  

Jensen : *calls strawman*

 
You can't make this shit up. I thought you'd be better than this. I really did. Lol guess I am expecting too much out of people who never have truth or customer rights as priorities.  

 
Do you not understand that the only way to identify a sex buyer via a brothel phone....is for that phone to have personal identifiable information about the said person? Aka pii?

 
Nowhere did you hear, huh?

Phone number ALWAYS has been considered part of pii because literally pii is anything that can be used to identify you.

http://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/personally-identifiable-information-PIIAnd now your trying to make an argument that phone number is not pii?
Lmao.

 
Clearly in the video the cop says literally information contained on POs phone was used to identify sex buyers.

He explicitly says this. But I'm the one moving the goalposts lol.  

 

But of course you deny clear facts when they aren't in your favor. Pathetic and scummy. And of course you won't ever mention this risk to newbies asking if it's safe to share real info with the po of an org.  

 
You are just liars. Pathetic scumbag liars. Ask any lawyer if phone number is pii info.

This is what kyungjean referred to. It couldn't be anymore clear yet you are denying it with a straight face. Lmao.

In fairness I don't think rocket was moving goal posts, as I say, he is just being too argumentative to talk to. And for no reason other than to argue.

 
Like with you, he wants to argue something neither you, nor I, ever said. A personal number is PII and neither of us claimed otherwise.

 
But the value of the case and how it all plays out is potentially in better assessing risks -- which could me all those saying "never" PII have a stronger case or could mean they, assuming they actually believe if makes them safer, are whistling past the graveyard. If we learn that all of these guys used their personal number a stronger case for the never PII side. However, if that is the case then I'm not surer why LE would waste time looking for DL images in the phone logs and try matching poorer quality images to the surveillance images when they know exactly what image to get from the RMV database.  If it turns out that we have a mix and some of these guys never shared any PII, that clearly indicates a some (how much each can decide for themself) reduction in terms or reducing risks and so reduces the argument of "never PII" as some default advice to others.

 
There is, at least for me, the question (though I'm not sure it will be answered) as to whether any of these 28 were among those mentioned in the affidavit that were interviewed and confessed. If none of those guys are being charged then, for me at least, that is a strong suggestion that you work with the federal authorities and get a deal for doing so. (Again, I'd work with a lawyer on that.) Which then also lends some strength to the suggestion someone on the DC board made about not using agencies and worked with truly independent providers. Local LE is not going to spend the time and money (2 + years I think) to bust a hooker and round up customers.  

 
To me this whole thing is really about getting a better picture of the real risk structure and then being able to better manage exposure and not fool yourself into thinking you've reduced it if you haven't.

"Nowhere did I hear the officer say they got PII from the agency to match the person to the charges"?

 
Again this doesn't make sense. If phone number is pii, then why would you ever say this considering in the video  a cop explicitly says it was used to identify a customer?

So you just lie outright then? What other interpretations can someone use when a person says A, and you say after presumingly watching the video that you haven't heard the person say A?

People accuse me of gaslighting, but that is exactly what you're doing here. Let's try it again. Do you agree that the cop in the video has said that pii they got from agency was used to identify buyers (in plural)?  

 

"However, if that is the case then I'm not surer why LE would waste time looking for DL images in the phone logs and try matching poorer quality images to the surveillance images when they know exactly what image to get from the RMV database."  

I already explained this. Not saying this was necessarily applied to each and every guy (do I have to explicitly say this now? Smh), but it's very simple.  

 
To prove the defendant was actually there, they need proof. They take surveillance footage. They have the persons pii info. They establish that the person with the correct pii is matching what they see on surveillance. This is where you need a photo of the defendent. You take this photo from a db - in this case rmv - and match it to the footage.  

 
Othwrise, defense would ask what proof would they have of my clients being there. Just a text from a phone number that belongs to the client doesn't constitute money  
exchanged for sex. If somehow one of the clients has a good alibi, the whole thing falls apart. So they need proof that they were there at the brothel at that time of the established appointment they got via text message snooping.  

It's really not rocket science.  

 

Also, I don't think I said anyone should be "never pii". It's just that the risks should be known and fully given to people when they start this wonderful journey. By obfuscating or ignoring risks, and giving advice of "you have nothing to worry about it, there has no been precedent of law using the pii against you" you are misleading people. All I asked is to change that stance moving forwards, based on the now established precedent.  

 
Not to mention, the whole 1% theory is falling apart. We have now seen a software engineer, two regular doctors, etc being named. It's regular people like you and me who are getting fucked. I view it as my duty to try do everything I can to prevent this from happening again, and about the only thing I have power of is to write posts in places where others can read them and make risk adjustments.

 
No one has said that not giving pii fully eliminates all risk.

But the "if you can't eliminate all risks then you shouldn't eliminate any" is an absurd concept. Yes, if the government really wants YOU, they'll likely catch you slipping somewhere.

But if the government wants a certain subset from a group you belong to, making it more difficult to identify you is a great step to have a probability that they will take someone else - someone who didn't reduce any risks - first.

if you are curious, you should watch the video of the actual show cause hearing.

 
It is, well, clear.

He is too stupid to answer. And not as fun to mock and laugh at as you are

Which link is funnier? The one where you don't know kakao, or the one where you don't know the meaning of "several"?????

It is a hard question!!

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girl-113/i-think-the-demographic------29865?page=

https://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girls-113/pops-you-are-stupid-38027?page=

to come up with a snappy retort.  Do you see the irony in you calling ANYONE else stupid.  This link our of context of the conversation is supposed to compare to your not knowing the difference between a Kgirl and an indie Korean provider, and here you are with a few fake reviews passing yourself off as a Kgirl expert?  You're just a troll, and not even an imaginative one, and everyone knows it.  

 
Why don't you include the link to WHY I don't use Kakao talk?  It's because the Korean government seized all of the personal information of Kakao Talk's users.    Do you really think it makes you smarter to use this service when the government has the personal information of the users, especially when you use to talk wo women selling sex?  I just get their +82 phone numbers.  Then I have the ability to talk to them permanently, here or in Korea after they retire.  I doubt any would give you their Korean phone numbers unless they were your sister, cousin, or aunt.  Lol

 
Small man (in more ways than one), and petty troll.  A sad way to go through life.  Go ahead and have the last word, it's what you live for.  

Somewhat clear, not that I've found a video that cover the entire hearing for one of the defendants, just watch one, I did see they said they subpoenaed (and unnamed provider) and got the subscriber data. If all the other hearing make the same claim okay. I'd just note that what seemed to be a bigger deal for both sides what LE being able to make the case the the accused could be put at the location when he was suppose to be there. I would also note that, at least in this case, there was not claims that any screening data was pulled from the agency phone or from the call logs. Nor, as some claimed, that the RMV photos came from the agency phone.  

 
So if all the other cases do also say they got the name of the person from the call logs/agency phone data and then got a name from the number and whoever provides the phone services I'll say okay. But, it doesn't sound like that is really what they needed to get probably cause. Seems like it might be a step (easier step but just a step) on the way to making the cases that some accused can be put at the scene of the crime. For that though, the number is neither sufficient nor even necessary.

 
It does make for an easier investigation, which has never been in dispute. So I might revise my views from they focused on the high volume guys to they focused on the easy targets and the claims about "high volume" clients was more BS than truth. Forget if the threshold was 400 messages or appointments. Appointments might, even if the data goes back to the start of BTT's use of the phone, maybe makes high volume more accurate but 400 texts over more than 2 years is not that high volume. If the texts go back longer then pretty much any regular might meet that criteria. So from that perspective I'll simply note that all those guys telling everyone to never use the real number should say a thank you to those like me that don't really have anything to hide from. We'll be the guys running interference for guys that will lose a lot if they get called out.

Way to keep deeging your hole deeper.
Do you know what a precedent is?  

 

"
So from that perspective I'll simply note that all those guys telling everyone to never use the real number should say a thank you to those like me that don't really have anything to hide from. We'll be the guys running interference for guys that will lose a lot if they get called out."

Being proud of ignorance and ignoring safety? Yikes.  

 
Next time you give the advice of how safe giving pii info to orgs is, could you please write a little disclaimer of what you just said? Ie, you can get identified via your pii by Leo's, but that you personally will protect others by being on the forefront. Mkay thanks.  

You're so determined to spin this in a way I still wonder what is the endgame here for you.  

 

We do agree about the 400 text messages criteria being weird, but again this was said multiple times under oath. You can consider this bs, but lying in contempt and perjury doesn't sound something worth hidijg the true criteria (if the one stated is indeed bs) for.

"If all the other hearing make the same claim okay."

 
It was right in the post you replied to.

 
I have never said it is safe to give out PII. I have said was all have different levels of risk associated with it. But more importantly, at least the one case I viewed where screening data was discussed LE apparently did not get any from the agency phone. What they got as some code about race and age but no selfies, no pics of IDs, no CC info.

 
Given all three, and I will expect hold for the remaining cases, were very clear on putting the person accused at the apartment when the texts indicated the session was occurring and non just said "we have a phone number registered to X" I'll double down on my claim that the phone number and text is not strong enough evidence that any LE authority is going to court on.  So for you rocket, tell everyone here just how safe they will be when no one provides PII? Cops are just going to give up -- particularly in places where the incentives and directives seem to be nailing the client? You don't think the surveillance and tap on the agency phone to listen in on the scheduling (without caring who the client phone belongs to) won't happen and all the guys who have some much to lose are going to be safe?

 
If you want an end game from me I would say that attitude, that just because one plays spy-v-spy and never shares PII they are safe, is the big lie here. You don't come right out and say that but work very hard not to see that is what I've been highlighting the whole time. So I'll say it a different way. Everyone that is not giving out PII is only really safe because others are and they are the easy targets for LE. If all the easy targets go away not giving out PII and using a burner number is not really giving you much cover. The surveillance and cameras are going to be there. The tap on the agency phone is going to be there. LE knows when to expect a client. If LE decides you fit the profile they defined (400 messages or whatever) they really don't need a phone number to find out who you really are. So, for those that have everything to lose if they get caught, well you might want to just redo those cost-benefit calcs to see where you stand.

If all other hearings? How many are left? So far I have only seen info about identifying clients coming from POs phone. Have you seen any that said the contrary?

Do you not agree that there was precedent set?  

 

"and non just said "we have a phone number registered to X" I'll double down on my claim that the phone number and text is not strong enough evidence that any LE authority is going to court on. "

I have said the same. This isn't what we're arguing. The pii is used to identify the person, not to charge them. A text and a cell phone from which that text was sent from isn't enough. I said as much in previous post. After identification of a buyer is made, they have to provide evidence of the said person actually being there in person.

This doesn't negate the fact that a buyers identification was done via pii that was given to the org by the client.

 

"So for you rocket, tell everyone here just how safe they will be when no one provides PII? Cops are just going to give up -- particularly in places where the incentives and directives seem to be nailing the client? You don't think the surveillance and tap on the agency phone to listen in on the scheduling (without caring who the client phone belongs to) won't happen and all the guys who have some much to lose are going to be safe?"

So is this the explanation for your endgame? Why don't we worry about the situation where no one provides pii when we get there? It's like asking what will highway patrol do if everyone drives according to the law.

The hypothetical situation doesn't hold any weight in this conversation. The topic is whether or not there is precedent in pii info given to the org being used to identify a monger as a sex buyer. And we got a clear yes to this. So I expect honest mongers to not say there's no precedent anymore. These honest mongers care about truth presented to the noobs, right?  

 
"that just because one plays spy-v-spy and never shares PII they are safe, is the big lie here. You don't come right out and say that but work very hard not to see that is what I've been highlighting the whole time"

I have stated multiple times that I never said anyone is *ever* safe. Whatever safe means. This is annoying projection.

Just like in other threads about privacy, I never say you're safe if you do this and that. But you will be safer in general on average doing some of things that work for your privacy.

What your view on safety boils down to, is that if they want to fuck you, they will so you might as well bend over and expose all holes proactively.  
OK shitty analogy here on my part but come on bro.

Just because nothing is completely safe, doesn't mean you should stop being safe in many aspects.  It's not called "playing spy vs spy". It's called staying vigilant. It's called using common sense.  If Im doing an illegal activity it's in my best interest to let uncle sam see as little as possible. Not bare everything.  

 
"Everyone that is not giving out PII is only really safe because others are and they are the easy targets for LE. If all the easy targets go away not giving out PII and using a burner number is not really giving you much cover."  

Once again, why don't we wait until that situation rolls by before we start worrying about this.  

Right now, the issue is that in all hearings so far I heard, guys got identified via pii they provided to the org, not via any other means. And it only takes one such caae to set precedent anyway.  

All I'm asking is for you and others to never say there was no precedent anymore and hence lie to others who inquire about safety of pii info. I would think it's a pretty reasonable ask.  

 

" LE decides you fit the profile they defined (400 messages or whatever) they really don't need a phone number to find out who you really are"
Actually, they kinda do. They just told the judge the criteria how the buyers were selected. They even emphasized this in court.  

They have to prove a buyers phone belongs to him and it was from his phone that 400 texts were sent, no?  While I'm no expert in legalese, I think a defense attorney would have a field day with this if Leo's couldn't actually prove this.

 
I think your views on privacy are scary. And they lead others to believe privacy is bullshit, and they gladly give it up. Which is even scarier.

But hey some folks in the GD forum will tell us only broke, cheap folks see kgirls. Lol.

 
I guess good thing his company is actually standing behind him and not firing him.

Post your link, wrinkly ol' lonely man!