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.
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.
With all the tech out there that makes this easy, how big of a concern is it for people- both providers and clients (remember Alexis Wright, the Zumba escort?).
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.
In your example, the website is probably concerned about civil liability if it gets posted there, as it could be argued that they had a duty to determine whether it was consensual. So rather than be responsible for vetting a video, they will just ban people that do it.
-- Modified on 7/2/2017 9:18:55 PM
... 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.
Steph
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.
There would have to been some evidence.
Steph xoxo
+1
There would have to been some evidence.
Steph xoxo
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.
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.
What I do is make notes, send out warnings, and watch for additional credible complaints to come in. Those who are truly a problem, will show a pattern of bad behavior. We are very thankful for those members who take the time to send in reports, and who don't throw a fit if we decide to simply makes notes and keep an eye on things for the time being.
In this particular situation, we had a credible complaint about this client attempting to record with his watch a couple of weeks ago. Total "he said, she said", unfortunately. Notes were made, he was contacted (with the provider's permission) and a warning issued (and acknowleged). Less than two weeks later, another provider is making the same complaint (still he said, she said), but that's good enough for me to want him off the site.
Too tough? I don't think so.... and I do exactly the same when it's a provider who has been accused of a serious incident. I don't have the time or energy to screw around a whole lot with game players, regardless of which side of the coin they are on.
Always,
Gina
For the disease(burn the individual alive) that recorded the encounter.
I don't if "laws" matter, host the video off shore.
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.
Certain demographics in America have a greater desire to film every damn thing.
I blame the mental detectives that run around screaming sex tape. Like you hear in pop music.
Dumb is the word.
It's all the same cctv, LE body cams, unauthorized porn, cameras on evertthing.
All I can do is laugh at the people's stupidity, you got what you wanted lol.
Gina runs a tight ship..
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.
unauthorized fisting?
Nothing like a good forced penetration joke.
Am I right?
filming vs. fisting. Get it?
Why in the fucking world would you even attempt to explain "word play" to an illiterate moron?
Of course he doesn't get it. Maybe if you drew it in crayon for him? but no, not even then.
Of course I got it.
My question is, should I not take accusations seriously, or not?
Not to mention your reputation for such things.
Do you think I fisted someone? LOL!
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.
What is there to gain?
I guess if you want incriminating against yourself go for it.
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.
Unauthorized is unauthorized ; like no means no. This is a bright line.
the client was warned and then did it again 2 weeks later.
Being banned from P411 is not going to stop this guy. He will continue to record. He just won't get references through P411.
I don't wear a watch but now I have to worry that the next lady I see may not let me bring my glasses into her boudoir. Bummer. There always seems to come along some ahole screwing things up for everyone else.
All the attention he is now getting here, on TER.
Nothing like free publicity.
I wouldn't be surprised if he increased his deplorable behavior.
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.
The media went crazy and pushed for release of the client's names as they were "public records" once they were disclosed in the discovery portion of the criminal case. The media won, and the names were made public. One of them was the Vice Mayor of a local municipality who had a strong anti-prostitution stance when he was a candidate. He resigned, got divorced and basically disappeared from the public eye. Many other marriages were rent asunder once the names became public. The deputy lost his job and he and the provider eventually divorced.
She moved on, still plying her trade and became legendary in her profession, which I believe she still works at.
Hobbyists should beware of incalls since with today's electronics, she wouldn't need a husband in the closet to record the action. Better a neutral hotel room that the hobbyist rents, though if she really wants to record the action, it is technologically possible to do that surreptitiously.
Just tossing this tidbit out there for your edification.
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?
That dude should be banned for good!