When researching some providers I sometime realize that they are using their real phone # that's associated to their real name and address!

I do a very good job vetting potential new friends & don't fear anything because I there's a mutual respect for each other's privacy. My identity is no secret once we meet in person I am very honest & don't mind sharing my real name with my friends. I'm 47 years old and if someone wants to come to my house with bad intentions I have a bluenose pitbull who has been my bodyguard and first line of defense for 11 years now.  

I see no connection with "if they don't care about protecting their own identity" and "they really don't care about yours."
Also, I can't recall any of the hundreds of women I've seen who were escorting using their own real name. Some did end up sharing this info but only after a relationship of trust had been established.

Just because you haven't noticed it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I come across it quite frequently.
Most of the time they are new to the business but they have been reviewed by other clients.

I agree as it can be very disconcerting. I can’t tell if it’s inexperience, or more of an all too trusting nature, but I certainly can understand the concern from a guys POV.
.
Like Nicky said, they very well might be two, entirely separate issues, but we are dealing in an illegal lifestyle so I think it is less about paranoia and more about self preservation for the client.
.
If I were asked, and on rare occasions I am, to give advice especially to someone new to providing, I would certainly strongly suggest she get a burner phone for many reasons,  but one would def be to give the client the impression that protecting his RW info is sacrosanct, and what you are mentioning could give the gent a totally different impression.

It may not be their real name, may be the prior owner of the number. Many use burner numbers…who knows how many people have used the same number over time…

Typically a newbie who doesn't know any better.  I have pointed this, or other privacy issues to providers I've met, all with the same surprised reaction that clients use search engines on phone numbers and photos.

She is not the only one that does it. Now she is a different case as she has approximately 2 decades experience in the lifestyle so she knows the risks. She feels like it works for her and that’s good enough for me as that’s her call.  
.
But I can assure you other women do it with FAR less experience, as I know them personally. They are rare, to be sure, but trust me… they exist. And tbh, I worry about them.

Since QB doesn't post her number online, I assume this means clients only get her number after screening and paying a deposit. That certainly can limit the risk. Obviously, a burner is the least risky. But using a personal cell and posting it in ads/websites is much riskier.

And I've seen it quite a bit.  As some have said, it may be an old number and other people or businesses come up related to that number.  
.
However, I have Googled Provider's numbers from their ads and have found all kinds of personal information.  Real name, personal residence, day job, Facebook with family, loved ones & friends and much more.  If I visit these Providers, I make them aware of the issue and the fallout that can ensue.  
.
And it isn't just Newbies.....

Speaking only for myself, the cases I’m referring to aren’t "assumptions", as they are supported by firsthand, verifiable proof along with admissions.

I presume they get your number well after the “researching” stage that OP is referring to, though.

you reviewed where you included her real name and phone number in the profile part of the review?  Whether or not you are able to find her real name and phone number, I have to concur with Nicky that out of well over 1000 providers I've seen, I have never met one that was not protective of their RL personal information until I had been seeing them as a customer regularly for around 6 months so that each of us are confident the other is not BSC.  If it happens frequently, as you claim, my guess is that you are stuck in the low end of the market. These sound like street girls or car dates where the girls have little to lose if arrested and doxxed.  

Yes. Her number was provided to me after screening was done.

One of the ladies I used to see in NY became a good friend. Literally. I had access to certain information that most don't and she would ask me to help her screen clients on occasion.  

Is anybody else thinking what I'm thinking about the sharing of PII (personal identifying information)?

Yeah, I was waiting to see what the reaction on that was going to be.

I get that.  

That is completely fucked up.  If there is ever a hobbyist code that is put together the number 1 item should be:  never let a provider share personal information on another hobbyist with you.  The fact that you continue to do this knowing that personal information will be shared is really despicable.

It's hardly despicable to try to keep a provider safe.  

If anyone is to know some fellow (aka "trusted" as in trust me bro) client looks at the private and confidential information you send to the escort, some would probably avoid sending it.  
I doubt random dick Joe or Harry like some nosey client looking at their rl info.  

Yeah they talk the good talk on how they keep your information safe and it’s for their safety. Yet you got crap like this going on.

If a provider were seeing ten clients a day bare back, yet publicly described herself as “low volume” and someone who “plays safe,” many clients would hesitate to share any personal information with her, if they were aware of those facts, no matter how attractive or affordable she might be. In other words, there are plenty of private behaviors that, if made public, could cause you (plural) to not see them, right?  
.
But let’s focus on this specific situation rather than drifting into losely related comparisons. For decades, many women in p4p have relied on others to assist with verifcation. This is nothing new. That is part of the reason sites like P411 were created. I don’t think most providers literally mean that your personal information “won’t be shared with ANYONE.” Experienced clients generally interpret that to mean it won’t leave the provider’s internal operation. For some Indys, that OP is just them and only them. For others, it may include assistants/bookers/agency owners, etc etc etc. Come on man. You must know this. lol.  
.
And if you believe that none of those people are also clients, I’ve got oceanfront property in Phoenix to sell you. Several have said the same things recently that Holy mentioned, and there wasn’t much, if any, backlash about it then.
.
That said, I’m not arguing that concerns about privacy are invalid as that’s a separate issue. But it does raise a broader question about whether someone should be in this line of work at all on the clients side if that level of unknowable risk is unacceptable.  
.
Personally, I operate under the assumption that more than one person may see my verification information. I make decisions on a case by case basis, and I base it on the research I have done on that particular provider. At some point, I either trust the effort I put into that vetting process and move ahead with the date request, or I find red flags, or worse, i.e. flat out factual info that instantly rules her out.

That is quite telling.

There are probably assistants out there who have hardly built up the same level of trust he had to build up for a provider to allow him to help. Basically, he's an assistant who likes to hobby too. Anyone who has a problem with this shouldn't book any provider who uses an assistant.

You might want to make sure to start any booking request with this line:

The issue I was bringing up had nothing to do with provider safety or the use of assistants.  I have an issue with fellow hobbyists (particularly those that participate on TER boards) screening the PI of other hobbyists.  If that doesn't bother you - fine.  But, I am confidant it would bother guys on this board if they knew that Holy was reviewing their PI.

No problem with assistants and bookers and this isn't an issue about provider safety.    I am sure your friend in NY can easily retain an assistant or booker other than you.  Not a hard thing to do.

The same way you get your information - from providers.  Problem is that the NY provider will actually have to pay an assistant/booker.

The fact that this supposedly was not an issue in the past - so what.  You keep turning this into a generic privacy issue, which wasn't my intent.  The concern I raised was about hobbyists being privy to the PI of other hobbyists.  So, I will ask the question directly:  would any of the guys on this board be upset if they contacted a provider with their PI and then learned that Holy was actually doing the screening?

What’s the difference between Holy doing the screening and some random assistant doing the screening? Keep in mind there’s nothing stopping the assistant from perusing these boards.

What reason would the provider have had for relying on Holy to verify her clients to begin with? Is it possible she beleved he was the most reliable resource available to her at the time? It may also be that her previous assistant(s) proved ineffective, or even worse, and thus potentially leaving her exposed to advanced risk.
.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of this lifestyle knows that provider/assistant fallouts are fairly common. When they occur, it’s rarely as simple as snapping your fingers and having the perfect, highly competent booker magically appear out of thin air. It’s a process and one that can really frustrate a SWer.
.
At the end of the day, the decision about who handles her verification can directly impact the providers personal safety. For that reason, such choices are entirely at her discretion so your "intent" is irrelevant. She is the one asuming the risk by meeting with strangers, and strangers that are bigger/stronger than she, and as such, she has the right to decide who is best suited to help keep her safe, and not you. That is the very definition of agency.

He may be getting paid or a discounted rate. That was not addressed, so that part is an assumption. You might be right. But, TBH, it doesn't matter. Being paid doesn't make someone more or less trustworthy.

That is a HUGE assumption, speculative and unwarranted.  I have had a few Providers ask me for help in vetting some clients.  No remuneration offered or asked for. My pleasure to help.  

" In other words, there are plenty of private behaviors that, if made public, could cause you (plural) to not see them, right?"

What exactly can he do that she cannot do?  

Her personal safety > you being upset about who verifies her clients.
.
When you give your PI to a provider, you know there is a possibility she will then share that info with an assistant of some kind. She has that choice as its her business...her body...her rules.
.
You can totally avoid that risk by seeing women who dont require it. Easy, peasy.

Is Holy any less trustworthy or reliable than any anonymous booker?
Does Holy have any more incentive to misuse PII vs any anonymous booker?
Is there any reason to believe that somewhere in P4P world there isn't another booker who also plays?
Is there anything to suggest a conflict of interest or possible bias that might work against either a player or a provider?
Is there any suggestion that Holy has behaved differently WRT players than any anonymous booker?

But as of now no one can avoid seeing whoever it is that is sharing with Holy as she has not been named.

How cute how you're moving goalposts now.  

Is that a serious question? Do you really think it’s impossible for some, highly skilled clients to possess greater expertise in personal security than any one, individual provider? Many providers already entrust that critical role to others and often because they recognize those people are better equipped to vet and assess risk. That’s not unusual in the least.
.
And even if he is in the process of teaching her, developing that level of skill takes time. It isn’t something anyone masters in a conversation or two. Any gap or misunderstanding during that learning process could have serious consequences, including putting her safety at risk.

First and foremost, there is always risk when turning over pii information. And, the more people that are involved in seeing this information, the greater the risk. And, it is a personal choice how comfortable you are with sharing that information or not.

I don't think so. If your claim is everyone is OK with assistants and bookers, so therefore they should be OK with holy, then you better be OK with naming the provider and yes, THEN the clients can make this personal choice you're talking about.

When you contact a provider by text, email, or a booking form, that very moment there is a chance you’re actually contacting their assistant or a booker. Someone like yourself who is not new to this knows this is the case. Only very few actually mention in their websites or ads that you will first work with their assistant.

Suggesting that someone should expose a woman simply because she chose a verifier you don’t personally approve of is the height of arrogance. As a client, you are entitled to SOME information but certainly not ALL of it.
.
Your role as the consumer is to decide whether what is publicly available is sufficient for you to make a booking, not to demand or dictate how, or with whom, she protects her safety.

I am not paid and she runs on slim margins at times and would not want to pay an assistant or booker. Besides the fact that she wouldn't be so quick to trust anyone in that role.  

I think it is possible for them to know how to do something. I think that can then teach the person how to do that. The tools are not that so complicated that others cannot learn. The only case where I see it not being possible is if Holy has access to non-public systems rather than the many paid and free online services. But in the later case, as I said, that brings up number of other question.

You're the one who is speaking nonsense here. Saying which provider employs holys service does not expose her in any way, shape or form. What it does is enable clients to know information they have otherwise no access to.  

I have stated, on record that I've never given nor am planning to give my pii info to anyone in this industry.

She’s clearly leaning on your unique skill set because she recognizes a gap between the information available to her and the broader, more comprehensive insight you can provide al with the goal of improving her safety. That level of trust speaks volumes re; the confidence she has placed in you. Nicely done sir!

The questions are in the post at the bottom. That was posted before this exchange. I was referencing that you didn’t answer my questions.

Something you still don't get.

How the fuck would she be "outed"? For fucks sake.
This would just state her alias on here.

Her alias on here? First off, most providers use their provider name on here. They don’t have an alias. Unless you’re pointing out the fact that provider names are not their real names. But this is far from the same as a client with username and/or alias on here. Her provider names exposes a way to contact and harass her. Any decent person wouldn’t put their friend in this position. You expecting it is outrageous.

The only new information is that Holy shared he did it. If you think that it’s new information that this practice is new at all, your head’s in the clouds. Not sure what you have against Holy.

I hope to lord each one of you that advocates for not saying her name, never ever even tries to say they're pro monger or that we should do research. When you're the ones advocating withholding info that might prevent someone from doing something they don't want to do. Hypocrite ass shit. I will dunk anyone's ass into this thread each time robert or anyone else who supports this will even try to utter shit about "research".  

I'm arguing - something you still haven't gotten - that it is mongers best interest to know the information that helps him avoid others.

He means her alias for working - in other words, how someone would know her if they were trying to book a session. Nothing secret about that other than Holy has not mentioned it.

Honestly don't get why you guys keep responding to rocket. No matter how many times you explain a different point of view, or others chime in with agreement, he will never yield his viewpoint on things. He is incapable of seeing things through others eyes or accepting that someone else cannot be convinced to agree with him.

Geez, this is getting absurd.  Why don't you all move on?  If you are that put off with HolyStoneTheDeck's actions, as you or someone else mentioned, don't see the women he has reviewed.  Get over it and have fun with someone else.  Plenty of fish in the sea!

I thought getting truthful info to make an informed decision is the point of ter.

And hopefully they don’t do this. But where this becomes risky is using the phone number to checkin at a hotel. Hotels often run numbers on Google and if your number pops up with an ad attached then your risk for getting busted is higher. Hopefully this person is using a different number than the one they are giving out. Also some people men included don’t realize that the app they are using is often running on the network of the phone number it’s being used on. Which then leads back to their information. This is why a separate phone is best not an app. Although I have connected the burner phone to their real phone as well but can’t tell you how that is done .

Why do some providers insist on a client using a real phone number?

They want a real number so they can background check you.

So they know exactly who you are.  

Well I’ll continue to see the girls who are ok with a burner lol