CupidsEscorts Tweets a Client's Information

[sempel]

I’m conflicted about how this particular incident was handled, but a bigger issue that worries me is that there seems to be a kind of bubble chamber culture developing on Twitter where some SPs are more open to posting client information than they used to be.

For example, a few months ago, a reasonably well-known Ottawa independent SP posted a client’s real name and phone number to Twitter just because he had been a no-show two times in a row. I get it, she was angry, but she also could have destroyed this man’s career.

Once this kind of culture starts developing, screening is going to get harder because everyone is going to be paranoid about being outed. And it undermines trust in general... if this kind of info sometimes gets tossed around on Twitter, it makes the mind wonder what kind of information about clients is being tossed around between SPs in slightly less public forums, like private multi-person chat services, where info could easily be leaked by any disgruntled participant.

Wow, that's fucked up. That's why I never provide personal info. Fact is most ladies are professional and rational but there are a few nutty ones and if I somehow end up seeing them and misstepping in some way (not deliberately) and pissing her off, the reaction is unknown. So while I don't expect this from most, I have to assume the potential exists with every lady so no info ever. I don't condone shit like no-showing and such but outing the guy on Twitter?

We have this thing called the justice system.

And last time I checked, the number one code is "innocent until proven guilty".

Harvey hasn't even been charged with a thing. So if there is evidence against Harvey, charge him and let him have his day in court. If not, then he's not guilty and that's the end of the story.

Right now, all I see is Chairman Mao type justice and I don't like it. We have courts and lawyers and police. Not twitter.

Many of the people accused like Harvey are being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Fact is in some cases, the victim is from a long time ago and there is no prospect of conviction. So while the person may be guilty of committing a crime, they'll never be charged and convicted. But I think if a guy is accused by 1 lady, he could be innocent. Once you start having multiple ladies come forward, he's guilty of something - it's highly doubtful these ladies got together and decided to coordinate railroading a guy.

I understand why some women don't come forward but the fact is they did themselves and other women a great disservice by not coming out with this when it happened. If Weinstein was confronted years ago he would have been labeled an offender, he wouldn't have been successful, and he would have had less opportunity to victimize the women he victimized.

 

[yermama]

I don't think LE would "happily get involved". And as far as throwing the book at him, they would throw it real hard at the owner of Cupids. You can count on that.

Yeah, it wouldn't be very good for Cupids when they have a fake news article saying no more sex from 2014. https://nowtoronto.com/news/cupids-escorts-leaves-the-sex-trade/

 

[mandrill]

That is definitely not true. The account has other tweets from 2016 that show a client's full name, face photo, phone number, the place of work, and email address.

Private information and intimate media

Private information: You may not publish or post other people's private information without their express authorization and permission. Definitions of private information may vary depending on local laws. Read more about our private information policy.

Intimate media: You may not post or share intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent. Read more about intimate media on Twitter.

Threats to expose / hack: You may not threaten to expose someone’s private information or intimate media. You also may not threaten to hack or break into someone’s digital information.

Report private information posted on Twitter

Posting another person’s private and confidential information is a violation of the Twitter Rules. Read about our policy regarding private information posted on Twitter.

About private information on Twitter

Twitter Rules: You may not publish or post other people's private information without their express authorization and permission. Definitions of private information may vary depending on local laws.
Rationale

Posting someone’s private information online may pose serious safety and security risks for the person whose information is shared. As such, this is considered one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules.
When this applies

Some examples of private information include (but may not be limited to) private contact or financial information, such as:

credit card information
social security or other national identity numbers
private residences, personal home addresses, or other locations that are considered private
non-public, personal phone numbers
non-public, personal email addresses

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/personal-information

That took me about a minute and half to find on Twitter's site.

 

[rhuarc29]

Keep in mind that it's a common practice to out John's caught in prostitution stings. Obviously we see stealthing as wrong, but keep in mind that a large number of the Canadian population sees participating in prostitution as wrong too. If you support Cupid's airing this guy's private info, I don't see how you can protest police outing Johns without being a hypocrite.

I don't think tweeting the guy's info was the best decision by Cupids though. If it was an alleged assault get the police involved. I think that publicly tweeting personal information crosses a line in the absence of a proper investigation.

+1
Cupid's should have gone through the proper legal channels. Alternatively, they could have blacklisted the guy and put out a PSA with his number, rather than his name and address.
Social media justice is a dangerous thing. You have people, with no conception of the principles of actual justice, trying to evoke the wrath of the mob. Even though I would never dream of doing what this guy did, I can't support Cupid's response.

 

[yermama]

That took me about a minute and half to find on Twitter's site.

Then explain why her outing of another client from 2016 is still there.

 

[doggystyle99]

That is definitely not true. The account has other tweets from 2016 that show a client's full name, face photo, phone number, the place of work, and email address.

So what you're saying this isn't the first time she has outed someone.

 

[doggee_01]

Keep in mind that it's a common practice to out John's caught in prostitution stings. Obviously we see stealthing as wrong, but keep in mind that a large number of the Canadian population sees participating in prostitution as wrong too. If you support Cupid's airing this guy's private info, I don't see how you can protest police outing Johns without being a hypocrite.



+1
Cupid's should have gone through the proper legal channels. Alternatively, they could have blacklisted the guy and put out a PSA with his number, rather than his name and address.
Social media justice is a dangerous thing. You have people, with no conception of the principles of actual justice, trying to evoke the wrath of the mob. Even though I would never dream of doing what this guy did, I can't support Cupid's response.

yes i agree

 

[james t kirk]

It’s not Chairman Mao justice, it’s public opinion which has been around since the dawn of time. Get used to it.

It is exactly the same form of justice that the Chinese communists used.

You don't understand the historical analogy, so I will explain it. Under Mao, during the so called "cultural revolution" one could easily find oneself in a labour camp or standing before a firing squad. All it took was someone to accuse you of a crime against the state and you were done. You had neighbours who would simply say that you harboured anti worker sentiment and they would drag you away and shoot you. No charges, no trial, no pretext of a justice system. All it took was an accusation.

What we are seeing now is exactly the same. Trial by Twitter.

And I don't subscribe.

 

[yermama]

 

[mandrill]

Then explain why her outing of another client from 2016 is still there.

I went and found the policy for you. The policy is clear. The policy applies to this situation.

How do I know why the previous post is still there?! Do I own Twitter?!

Maybe someone didn't report it. Maybe it got overlooked.

 

[mandrill]

So what you're saying this isn't the first time she has outed someone.

There have been certain other controversies, one famous one on TERB some years back IIRC.

 

[peepingtom]

It’s a he said she said situation and no-one knows what exactly happened. But based on what I heard, Jillian is a self righteous impulsive bully.

So what you're saying this isn't the first time she has outed someone.

There have been certain other controversies, one famous one on TERB some years back IIRC.

Jillian is known to have outed her own girls in the past. so this outing thing is not new to her.

 

[peepingtom]

There is a suggestion that the tweet violated Twitter's own code of privacy and had to be removed to avoid a Twitter ban.

There was also suggestion that the tweet invaded the guys privacy and Jillian could be subject to a lawsuit if the guy decided to pursue.

 

[doggystyle99]

Jillian is known to have outed her own girls in the past. so this outing thing is not new to her.

So not only has she outed hobbyists but she has to SP as well. I've used this agency once and will never be using them again I do not condone this type of behaviour.

 

[art van dele]

So not only has she outed hobbyists but she has to SP as well. I've used this agency once and will never be using them again I do not condone this type of behaviour.

That’s true, once she outed one of her own girls by telling the girl’s boyfriend.

 

[shack]

Harvey hasn't even been charged with a thing. So if there is evidence against Harvey, charge him and let him have his day in court. If not, then he's not guilty and that's the end of the story.

Right now, all I see is Chairman Mao type justice and I don't like it. We have courts and lawyers and police. Not twitter.

I think the difference here is that because of the allegations, companies feel that being associated with him is bad for business even if there is no crime. Any business has the right to deal with who they want to. Tiger lost endorsements. Kaepernick can't get signed.

Harvey's situation is fairly analogous. Companies/teams feel that certain individuals are no longer commodities that would enhance those organizations. It is true that his life has gone down the shitter not because of crimes but because of allegations (lots of them), but that seems to be the current nature of the beast and it is understandable, if not totally fair.

IMO, if he has been wronged, then he has the legal option at his disposal.

 

[shack]

You don't understand the historical analogy, so I will explain it. Under Mao, during the so called "cultural revolution" one could easily find oneself in a labour camp or standing before a firing squad. All it took was someone to accuse you of a crime against the state and you were done. You had neighbours who would simply say that you harboured anti worker sentiment and they would drag you away and shoot you. No charges, no trial, no pretext of a justice system. All it took was an accusation.

Same as I just said. This analogy is a case where the government of the people is imposing justice.

When Harvey or Tiger get ostracized it is by a private company that decides what is good for their company. I think there is a difference.

 

[Smallcock]

This is an example where hobbyists have to decide with their wallets whether they will support the actions of this agency or not. I do not, but since I rarely do outcalls anyway (for privacy reasons) the agency won't feel any financial loss from me.

Some really unlucky hobbyist(s) is eventually going to get caught up into being falsely accused and his life is going to pay a huge price. Fortunately, it'll never be me. The agency has set an extremely dangerous precedent.

 

[peepingtom]

Don't think so. Cupids offers a privacy contract on their site, but the client has to request it. It isn't an automatic guarantee.

So there is no contractual guarantee of privacy with them when you hire 1 of their girls.

And I am not aware that the law implies privacy when you hire an escort.

What about this then? It was posted by a spa owner on this issue of outing

 

[Frankfooter]

What about this then? It was posted by a spa owner on this issue of outing

Thanks, very informative.
I wonder if they should have taken the advice in the second last paragraph and had their lawyer talk to his lawyer (which would mean talking to the client first, though).
Don't know how else they should have handled this, except not as they did.