Recorded Sessions?

heh...pull your tryhard pants up GS...

I have heard worst.... And seen worst in REAL life... This is just the Internet...

I understand that. I read the links you guys posted and did more research on my own...

SO, do you usually record the sessions you have with yourself, while thinking about the providers you engage with pointless arguments on eccie ? Originally Posted by Natalia Mori

I guess I could contact you through my other handle on P411 and set up a session and record it for you if you like.

I guess I could contact you through my other handle on P411 and set up a session and record it for you if you like. Originally Posted by WTF

Go ahead... And let us know how that works out for you

Go ahead... And let us know how that works out for you Originally Posted by Natalia Mori

maybe i and others already have

maybe i and others already have Originally Posted by WTF

I guess you did have wet dreams with me last night...
Did we do it doggy? Picture me in RCG next time, I love to cum that way


Topic: and yes I give you permission to record yourself doing it, even if you don't need it

I guess I could contact you through my other handle on P411 and set up a session and record it for you if you like. Originally Posted by WTF

I had a feeling WTF was one of those guys that every provider sees atleast once without realizing its him .... u sly dog u lol

I had a feeling WTF was one of those guys that every provider sees atleast once without realizing its him .... u sly dog u lol Originally Posted by Kay2Day

In and out like a green beret??

This shit is like a Salem which hunt.

Fucked up but interesting to watch. Originally Posted by canihitit

+1

Let's get back on topic. This is about Papi secretly recording women...

Let's get back on topic. This is about Papi secretly recording women... Originally Posted by PaulWalker

he has since apologized and cesaed repsonding to this thread.

I think if any providers read this, they will be weary.

regardless of the law,

Recording an escort session without the provider knowing and vice versa, is just wrong and creepy.

I had a feeling WTF was one of those guys that every provider sees atleast once without realizing its him .... u sly dog u lol Originally Posted by Kay2Day

I have a feeling we will be feeling on each before it is all said and done.

regardless of the law,

Recording an escort session without the provider knowing and vice versa, is just wrong and creepy. Originally Posted by cr76

I do not believe that the provider cited below would agree with you. Without her recording the audio portion of the encounter, charges would not have been dropped. I personally think ladies are crazy not to record the audio portion of their session if they do not agree to exchange services for goods. Fucking for free is still legal in this country!

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Vi...ng-1706763.php


The woman, whose prostitution charges have been dropped, protested being arrested for offering sex in exchange for money.
On tape, the officer can be heard saying, “Well, you did, you know you did, I know you did. There's no audio, there's no video. It's gonna be my word against yours and who do you think they're going to believe?” according to court records.

I do not believe that the provider cited below would agree with you. Without her recording the audio portion of the encounter, charges would not have been dropped. I personally think ladies are crazy not to record the audio portion of their session if they do not agree to exchange services for goods. Fucking for free is still legal in this country!

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Vi...ng-1706763.php


The woman, whose prostitution charges have been dropped, protested being arrested for offering sex in exchange for money.
On tape, the officer can be heard saying, “Well, you did, you know you did, I know you did. There's no audio, there's no video. It's gonna be my word against yours and who do you think they're going to believe?” according to court records. Originally Posted by WTF

Well, there will always be the exception to the rule. I just know that i personally wouldn't want to be on tape during a session.

Yes the rules are different FOR LE....but not for civilians. Do you think you can supposedly illegally record a police officer and not get charged? Fuck no. They would charge the lady up the gazoo if they could. They can not because it is legal to secretly record a private conversation in Texas as long as one of the parties give consent. Originally Posted by WTF

More legal analysis from the guy who predicted Zimmerman would be convicted of "something" in his prosecution for the death of Martin.

Guess who provides "the as long as one of the parties give consent" ...

.... the "party" (according to your analysis) doing the recording...... and are you "confusing" phone taps?

Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to:

(i) invade the privacy of the other person; or

(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision."

The "problem" with the analysis is you, and others, confuse the "remedy" if an "unauthorized" video/audio is taken ... the "exclusionary rule" is the remedy in a criminal prosecution, but there are procedural and evidentiary exceptions to the rule.

The internet is full of video taken without "consent" of the part taped. That does not mean the video was taken "lawfully."

And perhaps more closely on point ....

18 U.S. Code § 1801 - Video voyeurism
(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(b) In this section—
(1) the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;

(2) the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;

(3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;

(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and

(5) the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means—
(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or

(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

(c) This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

(Added Pub. L. 108–495, § 2(a), Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3999.)

Take it up with the U.S. Attorney's Office.