One of the sites I use to get verified on sent out a message to all about banning a guy trying to record a session without authorization, using a spycam wristwatch. And they discussed other items frequently used to record.

a felony to record audio or video of someone without their consent in a setting that would normally being considered a private space, i.e., dressing room, bathroom, bedroom, etc.  If they're part of a crowd on the street, or inside a shopping mall, then its okay, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.   Its also actionable civilly for money damages.  

... how a member (not a provider) of that well-known verification site would post such a video there.  I suspect they took this action not out of concern over civil liability for posting videos on their site, but rather because they want to make it clear they don't condone their members taking recordings of sessions without consent.

-- Modified on 7/2/2017 10:41:16 PM

The guy was banned for using a watch with a camera to secretly record a video of a provider without her knowledge. Or at least that how I read it.

solely on the providers word without proof, then they are going to lose business from hobbyists.  The people that run sex sites, including TER, have to balance the sometimes competing interests of providers and hobbyists in order to have policies that are fair to everyone.  If a provider has an ax to grind and can get a guy banned just by making an accusation, then its not a site most hobbyists are going to want to have anything to do with.  

No one can post on the site. It's  P411... no mystery.. strictly verification.  
I thought the message was kind of odd.  Obviously it's not OK to record a session without the knowledge of the provider.  

Having the desire to film every damn thing is a mental illness.

For the disease(burn the individual alive) that recorded the encounter.

Gina runs a tight ship..

There would have to been some evidence.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the ladies had recording setups in their incalls - mostly for their safety, but you can't discount the possibility of such a recording falling into the wrong hands or being used for nefarious purposes.  Not something I worry about on a daily basis -just one of the risks that gets filed away when doing hobby risk/reward calculations.

+1

unauthorized fisting?

Yeah, Gina doesn't just take a providers word vs a client- even over serious situations where there's some circumstantial or positive evidence. She usually waits to see if she gets multiple complaints about a member, etc before taking action. I'm guessing the provider in question must have gotten solid proof such as a confession, pictures, or the watch itself.

Nothing like a good forced penetration joke.

The free porn out there, it amazes me a guy would even want to record a woman from a tiny, crap camera with poor lighting and a fixed angle the shows little to nothing. What a chode

Filming a hooker appears to be illogical.  

We don't always agree; some might say we don't often agree. Or ever agree. But we need to agree to police our special world together as there are enough organic reasons to be suspicious prior to a meeting - let's not add to anyone's stress, or worse, by having to wonder if there is going to be a hidden camera present.

filming vs. fisting.  Get it?

Why in the fucking world would you even attempt to explain "word play" to an illiterate moron?

Of course I got it.

the client was warned and then did it again 2 weeks later.

Do you think I fisted someone? LOL!

Being banned from P411 is not going to stop this guy.  He will continue to record. He just won't get references through P411.  

All the attention he is now getting here, on TER.

About 30 or so years ago, a provider's husband hid in the closet and videotaped the action while his attractive wife entertained clients on their bed. Turns out he was a deputy sheriff, not in the performance of his official duties. She kept info on her clients. Eventually, they got busted and if memory serves, their defense lawyer sold or tried to sell the tapes to  the tabloids to pay for his legal fees. His theory of defense was that she wasn't a provider, but rather a nymphomaniac and her husband filmed everything as a part of their sex life together.  

They made a movie about that incident starring Shannon Whirry-a BABE if there ever was one.
Cannot remember the title-worth watching-if you can find it.

Unless she advertises and agreed to filming a session  this is a huge no-no. What's the point of discretion and respecting privacy?