what do experienced hobbyists think about giving out workplace information for verification to well reviewed providers?

Do you guys advise against it or is it generally OK to use?

thanks

thank you very much for the response

I have done it *just once*, with the first agency I was trying to get verified by, and I did it through a bizarrely complicated, protracted and extremely indirect way, for which I am forever grateful to this particular agency for tolerating.  I won't do it again, and my greatest hope is that this information was of only transient value to the verifier and that it was promptly deleted upon verification (of course, I have no way of knowing this, and so must I presume it persists on some unencrypted drive volume on some vulnerable PC or PDA out there somewhere (*shudder*).

As a newbie myself, I can say that this was without a doubt easily the most distressing part of this new experience, forfeiting my real identity information to completely unknown stewardship.  

The girls will say we shouldn't be bothered by this because they have so much at stake.  While it's true that the safety of these ladies is terribly important, for some of us gents, a bust would result in a huge, life-changing experience not just for ourselves, but possibly for many others as well.

Since that initial verification, I have been slowly building my scope of verified resources, both agency and independent, through TER reviews, references from providers, white-listing, DATE-CHECK references, etc.  I think there is a point at which a gent begins to look like a fairly safe bet from the agency/provider perspective and the verification challenge diminishes somewhat.  That said, there will still be agencies and providers who insist on the full ID disclosure and I will pass those up in favor of others who will rely on my alternate identity and on the track record I'm building.

I'll admit that maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but perhaps I have a lot to be paranoid about.  For me, this advice to supply your real identity information *just once* was some of the very best advice I've received from the learned sages on this TER board.  The fewer instances of your real identity out there with agencies and independents, the lower the probability of something bad happening with your personal identity information.

Having said all that, most verifiers simply want to determine if you are who you say you are and will go about contacting employers in a very discrete way.  Remember, it is in their best interest also to be very discrete.  Sometimes a confirmation from the receptionist that you're not in at the moment or are on another line, or a legitimate voice mail recording from your personal business phone extension will do the trick.

Also, that thing in your post about "well-reviewed providers", that also mitigates your risk of providing personal identity information enormously; there's a good reason why they are well-reviewed!  Good luck!

I've only given my employment info to Date-Check once, and no one else in the hobby.

I just want to add, that even well reviewed providers, do not take enough precautions about storing and/or deleting clients information.  

I can think of an extremely well reviewed provider in Boston who was busted and LE confiscated her computer containing a list of client information.  

Learn about secure delete (sdelete) and also disk encryption!

Not directly to your question, but some of us don't even have verifiable workplace info. We are independent ourselves (private consultants, retired, independently wealthy, Congressmen -- cancel that last example) and don't have websites, don't have switchboards that answer with a company name, etc..  We can provide lots of recent referrals from well reviewed women, DateCheck, etc. but just don't have the biz info.

From my side, I say, "Lighten up! Make a few calls and you can verify me without biz info!" I can understand their side, that they make their own rules to be secure and comfortable.

You say you know of a provider that was busted and LE took her computer with client information,

did any clients get outed, arrested or called from this this confiscated information?

I know clients have a lot to lose if they get busted, but so do the ladies...I would actually argue that the ladies have more to lose.

I have never heard of a client having CPS called on him because he saw a provider, but I have heard of providers having CPS called because they are providers.

I haven't heard of a client being evicted from his apartment / house because he was a client (even if the provider came to his home), but I have heard of ladies being evicted even if they never worked from their home.

I know that on average 80% of busts are providers, even though there are a whole Hell of a lot more clients in this "hobby" than ladies.

I know that most clients, when busted, get a ticket and may have to go to classes, and that most ladies get arrested and taken to jail (with some areas actually having as much as a 72 hours mandatory jail time when they are arrested).

I know that guys might lose a job based on a morals clause, but they could lose that same job if they went to a swingers club or were caught having an affair with a civie woman.  

I once knew a lady in this business whose day job was in the human resources department of a very large company...she told me that when someone applied for a job that if they had been convicted of stalking that in and of itself wouldn't preclude them from being hired, but a prostitution conviction for a woman would be grounds for to not be hired.  She also told me this was pretty standard with many large companies.

I know a client could lose his wife if caught "hobbying" but he would probably lose his wife if he was fucking his secretary, or picked a woman in a bar or took a "business trip" to Florida during Spring Break and hooked up with a college co-ed.
If caught in the hobby he may get some shit from other family members, but many ladies if caught providing are completely disowned by their families.


Then there is the safety issue, there are many many women that have been beaten, raped, killed by "clients", not nearly as many client have met the same fate.  

As late as the mid 2000's in Southern California (San Diego) a crime involving a provider, even murder if she were the victim, was classified "NHI" NO HUMAN INVOLVED.


Yeah, clients risk a huge life changing experience  (involving others as well) if busted...but so do the ladies.

So if a lady wants my real name and place of employment, yes, it could maybe at some point be found on a HDD and maybe I could be called and asked questions that aren't even going to result in me being busted (to be busted as a client you have to be caught in the act), I would give her my name, as she has more to lose if I am a cop or a psycho then I have to lose if some day in the future LE gets  her computer.

> You say you know of a provider that was
> busted and LE took her computer with
> client nformation,

> did any clients get outed, arrested or
> called from this this confiscated information?

I don't know.   Also, I did not see her prior to the bust, but she was on my list to see.  She had some legendary "talents".

I'm not exactly sure why you went through so much trouble to say how much ladies have to lose.  I never denied that and never will.  In any case, it was educational.  The "NHI" clause is scary and heartbreaking.

What I don't understand is why you (and so many others) believe this has to be a win-lose situation.   Why can't it be win-win?  

Anyone can come up with a fake identity, and LE can fake government issued IDs better than anyone!

So, my point is, among two alternatives:

A. Giving out real name and a place of employment by the gent and the provider relying SOLELY on that information,

B. Gent not giving out full name/employment but using Date-Check with a list of references


Alternative "B" is safer for BOTH parties!

Oh, and in case you want to know...the provider I spoke about earlier, she was busted AFTER screening the cop with alternative A.  He used his real name!!!!!  He just arranged to be verified by some non-LE business establishment.


And everything I said about secure delete and disk encryption still stands.

I don't ask for employment info unless you DON'T have any recent provider referrals.  

I recently saw a gentleman who gives me 2 ladies for referrals.  One of them has 4-5 reviews from a year ago, then nothing.  One has one review from the guy who's looking for an appt.  

Neither provider has a website nor a phone number.  Nothing but an email address.  I don't consider either one of those provider referrals valid.  

In that instance I asked for an employer verification.

I know a lady who was busted severely after verifying a cop who was using his real name. Same scenario -- he just arranged another local business to verify him.

Anyway -- I'm not debating the issue in either direction. All I will say is that in any situation involving asymmetric trust, there will be conflict and a perception of bad-will.

The first part of my post was to you...

the second part of my post was to the poster you had replied to.

Once writing rather than make one post for you, and another that would be posted right next to that one, I simply posted one reply.


My long list was specifically in reply to Mr slipperyfun's statment,
QUOTE:
"The girls will say we shouldn't be bothered by this because they have so much at stake.  While it's true that the safety of these ladies is terribly important, for some of us gents, a bust would result in a huge, life-changing experience not just for ourselves, but possibly for many others as well."

By the way he wrote his post, he compared ladies safety to clients "life-changing experience" that would effect the client and others...
my point was that ladies face the same (if not worse) "life changing experiences" that effect themselves as well as others.

Is date-check and the like safer?
Maybe, though I am not sure how LE couldn't give the same real name, places of birth, work info to Date-check and get verified...the only difference being the lady wouldn't have his real info to give other ladies; Date-Check (or the like) would, and they may be a bit reticent to give that up for fear of obstruction of justice charges...
kind of like if their servers were to be subpoenaed, and they refused to hand over whatever records that they do have on the verified clients.

WebTerrorist,

We are each entitled to our opinions about things and there's a very good chance that sometimes we won't all agree.  We may have some of that going on here, possibly along with a bit of misunderstanding.  What I really suspect is that you and I have different life circumstances and that your point of view may not have gone far enough beyond your own life circumstances to consider perhaps very different circumstances of others.

Degrees of impact to gents from discovery will vary substantially from person to person depending on their life circumstances.  I'm not even talking about convictions necessarily, but allegations or charges or even rumors.  I suspect from your post that you have not considered the full possibility and scope of impacts to various other client circumstances.

I most emphatically agree with the ladies that they have much at stake, and I'm not for a moment dismissing their needs to feel comfortable with their decisions about what clients they can safely see.  I am a complete safety freak, and I care very much about both my own safety and the safety of the ladies; we are in it together.

Mostly what I was saying was that the argument that gents should be fine with routinely and frequently handing out personal identity information because the ladies should feel safe is an unstable and weak assertion.  From my own personal experience alone, I've demonstrated that a gent can carefully provide identity information sparingly, and use that along with experience and positive feedback to build a satisfactory history upon which many ladies and agencies are perfectly comfortable using as verification.

The notion that obligingly supplying personal employer information will necessarily make a lady safer is obviously flawed, as was cited in another post in this thread.  In the example given, employer verification alone was responsible for letting Ellie in the door and busting the girl.

I'm sorry you took issue with my assertion that *some* gents' repercussions will, in *some* cases far outstrip *some* ladies' repercussions, but it's simply true.  Please trust me on this.  As much as I'd like to, I can't elaborate further.  

But comparing the ladies' risk to the gents' risk was not my intention at all.  We all need to be safe.  My main point was that the ladies' assertion that they are at risk, and they most certainly are, isn't a sufficiently strong argument to compel a gent to necessarily supply personal identity information indiscriminately, and I'm sticking with that.

Peace.