Flaws in the verification process

By now we've all read about the recent bust in Nebraska. It has got me to thinking about what could potentially happen. I apologize if this has already been discussed.

In all likelihood, LE has access to this board and can read our reviews. So here is a scenario.

LE looks at reviews that I have written and makes a list.
LE picks up the phone and calls a provider (that I have not seen) to request an appointment.
Provider says "do you have an ECCIE screen name?"
LE lies and says "I'm love2fishfork"
Provider says "do you have any references?"
LE gives names of providers I've reviewed
Provider calls reference and says "do you know love2fishfork?"
Reference says "yes he's a good guy"
LE get's appointment and busts provider.

The point is, when someone uses the phone to make an appointment, there's no way for the provider to know that the person on the phone is who they say they are.

One solution would be to use the ECCIE PM method to make an appointment. That way the provider can be sure who the PM is from.

Just a thought. Any other opinions?

The point is a successful and a professional provider will always asks to send a PM from 'love2fishfork' to her account. Even there is a chance that the LE can take over the hobbyist or providers account (compromised) to trap more people...who knows?

What modda said id have them p.m me from his eccie account and I'd also look into the reviews he has posted a little bit

I'm glad you posted this Fish. I think potential flaws in the reference system, and strategies to repair those flaws is a conversation that is needed following what happened in Nebraska. Lessons learned and all that.

First its important to be clear that in spite of our best efforts, using references is still not a 100% guarantee against problems. When used properly, it dramatically decreases risk, but does not eliminate it. As we have just seen, the system can break down, and can be used against us.

It has been my policy for years to confirm with the hobbyist that he himself initiated a contact, but I confess that at times I've been lax about checking with the hobbyist before giving a reference. I learned my lesson about giving references freely when i wwas still brand new to escorting.

I had been escorting for all of about a month, and was just starting to learn the ins and outs of this business, including references, when I was contacted by a lady for a reference check. She was legitimate, she had reviews, I had just seen the gentleman in question the week before, so I thought nothing of confirming that I had seen him and that he was a nice guy. Oops, big mistake. She wasn't screening a new client, she was his ATF, and in her opinion, he had no business seeing anyone but her. When I unwittingly confirmed that he was 'straying' she went spider monkey apeshit on him. Boy did I feel sheepish. Heck, I thought I was helping out! So the lesson I learned was to always make sure the hobbyist initiated the reference before proceeding.

This is why on my website I ask gentlemen to contact me first before they give my name. That way I know to expect a reference, and I know for certain who I am talking about before I am even contacted by the provider. In the past, I have at times been lax about double checking, and it has crossed my mind several times in the past few days that it could easily have been me giving a reference that set another provider up. From now on, I will be more vigilant in double checking myself before giving a reference.

Gentlemen can help by making a point of contacting the lady they intend to use as a reference beforehand, either through ECCIE or through email. That way the lady being contacted knows the reference she gives is at your request before she is even contacted.

Nothing can make the reference system 100% foolproof, but we can work as a community to tighten it up so that LE has to work just a little bit harder to get through.

The provider probably thinks of you as a number....a phone number. So a call by le usI g a new number probably won't work. That being said, the reference system merely hedges your bet....not even close to failsafe.

Eccie is NOT a verification site and an Eccie handle means squat when it comes to screening. If "do you have an Eccie handle" is the only question she asks.....she isn't practicing safe screening. No exceptions.

Eccie is NOT a verification site and an Eccie handle means squat when it comes to screening. If "do you have an Eccie handle" is the only question she asks.....she isn't practicing safe screening. No exceptions. Originally Posted by Lovely_Lilianna

I think everyone is missing my point. Forget about ECCIE as a verification site. My point is, that anyone can call you claiming to be someone else who has references. Let me try this again.

1. LE calls provider and says this is Love2fishfork (a lie)
2. Provider says do you have references?
3. LE says yes I've seen provider X and Y (LE knows I've seen X and Y from reviews)
4. Provider calls X and Y and says do you know Love2fishfork?

The problem is, it wasn't Love2fishfork who called.

If someone calls to set up an appointment, how can you verify that you are actually talking to the person they claim to be?

By doing your due diligence and verifying his information, all of his information.

I find it REALLY hard to believe you don't understand this process. Stop fucking ladies who don't screen if you are so concerned with it.

Lilianna,

Its not that he doesn't understand it, he's referring to the bust that happened in Nebraska back in Oct where a lady who asked me for a reference was busted. She admitted that she didn't do any homework on the guy and went by my reference only. After that, a huge cluster fuck begins.

To put all our inside info out to these guys , because you never know who's computer could have been comprimised so really they just need to set up an apt with a provider and see if they pass our screening process. Just my thoughts.
Xoxo,
Lindsay

No verification system will ever be foolproof. You can never rule out the person was busted and started cooperating AFTER they were with whoever verifies them. This hobby has risks but they can be minimized. They cannot be erased.

We're not missing the point. Providers X and Y are going to ask "What was his number?".

See how the scheme collapses right there?

Again the verification process is inherently flawed. But this scenario is not a concern

We're not missing the point. Providers X and Y are going to ask "What was his number?".

See how the scheme collapses right there?

Again the verification process is inherently flawed. But this scenario is not a concern Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

If you can honestly tell me that EVERY provider we've seen keeps track of our phone numbers, and when asked for a reference they verify the phone number, than you are right. Obviously in Nebraska that didn't happen. I'd like to hear from more providers to see if that's what they do.

Of course every provider doesn't keep numbers....since half of them have no screening. I'm still not sure why the hang up with this one diabolical scheme....which would be fishing in pretty sparse waters from an le perspective.

You want to know how they really do it?

Step 1 - Arrest some dude....use a fake bp ad or something....but get his ass arrested and scared his SO is going to find out.

Step 2 - Have him call every girl he has ever seen, and arrest a half dozen girls in a few hours.

Step 3 - Use one of said girls to re-initiate step 1.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

No phishing scheme and impersonations needed. If you are genuinely worried about this one percieved flaw in the impenetrable reference system, I fear you are blind to the bigger pictire that I and others are trying to show you. Anyone cam screw anybody on any givem day
Barbie may have a session with Ken on Monday....answer his call on Tuesday....and get popped. The reeeeeaaal Ken.....no impersomator needed.

Be careful out there.

This is getting ridiculous! You're making assumptions based on your misunderstanding my post.

I'm not worried about anything nor am I blind to the bigger picture. I'm simply trying to point out something to the providers based on what appears to have happened in Nebraska. Maybe you were not paying attention, but the scenario I described, seems to be exactly what went down in Nebraska.