Secret videoing by escorts of their clients

[Stavros]

The legal situation in the UK is not as clear as you might think. As Krissy points out, in an example that crosses the Atlantic, a bank may install cameras to monitor its employees during the working day, but the employees must know, and the reasonable expectation to privacy means that areas like Bathrooms would not be filmed.

In domestic settings in the UK, the issue is not the right of the householder to make a film of anything that happens in their home, but the use to which it is put, but even here there could be a legal argument that just as any use of the film should only be made with the consent of those filmed, they should know in advance that they are being filmed so that they can object, and it would also be considered reasonable to protect an individual's privacy in a house by not installing a camera in the bathroom or toilet.

Either way, the person who has made or owns the film cannot broadcast it outside the home without the consent of those on the film. In addition to being a violation of privacy and consent law, this could also stray into sexual harassment issues in law. I would expect the law to make it illegal to share a home video on social media without the consent of those filmed.

As with official bodies like the police, it may come down to a vague issue like 'code of conduct' or moral judgement of what the Court thinks was reasonable for the parties at the time.

Note that the recording of sound is somewhat different and the law in the UK appears to be more strict with voice recordings than with film.

A reasonable expectation of privacy is the key term, and I cannot think of an encounter where it is most pertinent than in a sexual encounter between an escort and her client.

https://www.onlinespyshop.co.uk/uk-s...sential-guide/

[krissy4u]

A reasonable expectation of privacy is the key term, and I cannot think of an encounter where it is most pertinent than in a sexual encounter between an escort and her client.

https://www.onlinespyshop.co.uk/uk-s...sential-guide/

It's a really interesting legal issue that is just going to get worse as time goes on and technology advances. "Always connected" cameras are already sub $100.00 here in the US, and are selling well. I would guess that (if it hasn't already) in the near future, a case will be heard before the US Supreme Court regarding these devices. My guess would be, if the court is as stands now, they would side with the homeowner's right to record at any level within the strict confines of his/her property.

Also of interest to note - here in the US, escorting-wink-wink is still illegal. Engaging in this activity (as illegal) would automatically waive your right of privacy, which would make the criminal case of filming of an escort encounter even less likely to stand up in court - at least the way that I interpret the laws.

[Stavros]

Krissy, You point to an issue that is already proving difficult for government, that communications technology has, and is advancing beyond the ability of the state to control it. The various attempts being made to use technology to intercept and infiltrate social media, to 'snoop' on emails and web browsing behaviour is justified as part of the legal action the state can take against criminal activity, but the issue here is something more personal, if also shaped by the advances in technology.

I don't know the legal situation in the US, it may even changed from one State to another, but at root there remains that moral issue, namely the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and the question of consent, where on balance I think it would be immoral for an escort to film a session without the consent of those involved, even if it remains legal as long as it is not shared. Consider the possibility that someone in the review section mentions a session with escort X who filmed the encounter, which the reviewer was pleased to receive a copy of. Someone else who also spent time with the escort may be horrified to think his session was also filmed, but even if he does nothing about it, a key component -trust- has been broken and he is unlikely to visit that escort again. Someone with a less forgiving nature bearing a grudge may visit her again to demand to know if he was filmed and then the film itself, and so on with potentially disastrous results.

There is here a can of worms, with issues legal and issues moral. If the escort has a fetish for filming encounters, she is surely morally obliged to tell her client in advance so that he can decide if wants to stay? For what guarantee is there that she will always be scrupulous with her material, and suppose someone else, perhaps her partner, decides to use that film for other purposes? All hypothetical, but with potentially damaging consequences.

[krissy4u]

There is here a can of worms, with issues legal and issues moral. If the escort has a fetish for filming encounters, she is surely morally obliged to tell her client in advance so that he can decide if wants to stay? For what guarantee is there that she will always be scrupulous with her material, and suppose someone else, perhaps her partner, decides to use that film for other purposes? All hypothetical, but with potentially damaging consequences.

I would strongly doubt there is a "fetish" aspect to filming encounters between an escort and a client (from the escort's point of view - probably plenty from the client's point of view). If done, it is probably either motivated by [nefarious] monetary gain, as you suggested, or for post-altercation safety / proof.

Mmmm... I don't think it is logical to bring "morals" into an argument for pro / con videoing of such encounters. Morally, there is a good chunk of the population that would say patronizing escorts and / or escorting in/of itself is morally questionable and therefore any subsequent action would be tainted and / or justified. The "two wrongs don't make a right, but two wrongs don't make it any wronger either..." argument. You can't bring morals into legality these days... They used to be aligned, but in this new age of moral relativity, it is a worthless argument to make a "moral" standpoint on a legal issue.

BTWs - I'm not advocating that escorts film their encounters, especially if they've got a nefarious reason for doing so. I'm simply making the point that some individuals believe it is illegal to do so when technically, it is not illegal given the terms I outlined (i.e. - you own the space, you're not recording sound, etc.).

[Stavros]

Mmmm... I don't think it is logical to bring "morals" into an argument for pro / con videoing of such encounters. Morally, there is a good chunk of the population that would say patronizing escorts and / or escorting in/of itself is morally questionable and therefore any subsequent action would be tainted and / or justified. The "two wrongs don't make a right, but two wrongs don't make it any wronger either..." argument. You can't bring morals into legality these days... They used to be aligned, but in this new age of moral relativity, it is a worthless argument to make a "moral" standpoint on a legal issue.

The moral element exists in consent with or without reference to the law. If the escort and the client agree to being filmed, the morality of the arrangement is solid, but even if they fall out for some reason, and out of spite, revenge or extortion illegally share the film with a third party, whatever the law says, the moral core, that at the time it was made the film was made by consenting adults, remains, and the law would have to, or one hopes would recognise this, and punish the person who broke that agreement. Society may make relative judgements of the morals involved, but the law has to make a decision, or there is no law. I can't say for the USA, but in addition to laws on privacy, the issue at hand could also be challenged under Human Rights law, a law the Conservative Govt wants to repeal.

[skribble1]

Athena Addams records her sessions... Thats how she filmed herself getting robbed. lol

whaaat?

[gaysian71]

I guess if you are married and caught on video having sex with an escort it could be a pretty expensive sexual encounter once you are done with the divorce, alimony and child support. But if you are single, why even care. I mean I'm sure there will be a little embarrassment. But that costs nothing.

[Stavros]

Related to this thread is the news today that a case of Revenge Porn has been won in the UK-

A YouTube celebrity has won unprecedented damages against her ex-boyfriend after he admitted uploading “revenge pornography” videos of her to the internet.

In the first civil case of its kind to be brought in England and Wales, 26-year-old Chrissy Chambers sued her former partner for harassment, breach of confidence and misuse of private information, after learning that the Crown Prosecution Service would not bring criminal charges against him.
The terms of the settlement mean the man cannot be named, nor the amount of damages paid to Chambers disclosed, but her lawyers at the firm McAllister Olivarius say the sum is substantial.

Chambers, who is American, is one of the most popular lesbian content creators on YouTube, along with her partner, Bria Kam. The channels they run together have a million subscribers, and their comedy sketches, songs and vlogs have been viewed hundreds of millions of times.

More here-
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...enge-porn-case

[african1]

Yes... it is. RECORDING ANYTHING IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME IS LEGAL... PERIOD (recording sound along with video varies by state). That is why "Nanny-Cams" are able to exist. You have NO EXPECTATION of privacy if you are in someone else's house as a guest, employee, or whatever... except maybe in the restroom - you could probably make a case for that. Your expectation of privacy is waived... it isn't your property. This is why business owners, private property owners, etc. can record video or do surveillance on their property. You (as the owner) are the only one who as an expectation of privacy in your own home.

Could this view be challenged in court...? Sure... just like anything can be challenged in court. Privacy Laws govern where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in most cases. These laws are largely for governing and protecting public places that should be considered private such as changing rooms, restrooms, massage rooms, locker rooms, etc.

Revenge porn is an issue, not because it simply exists as a recording, but because it is distributed without consent of the parties. The recording itself is completely legal (in simple cases). Like I said - WHAT YOU THEN DO WITH IT is the problem. Recording, in and of itself - is not a crime. That is my only point. You're twisting my words to include distribution - I never claimed that was legal at all... and in fact, I stated that in my post.

did you read the forbes article?

[krissy4u]

did you read the forbes article?

Yes, I did. Aaaannnddd... again... I have to say... it is completely illegal to record audio along with video in almost every state without consent... I'd bet in all cases mentioned in the article, the video recorded audio as well. THIS is what makes it illegal and able to be prosecuted in instances like the ones Forbes mentions specifically. Fuller's is quite a bit different as the space was leased and the camera put there by the landlord, therefore Ms. Fuller had a reasonable expectation of privacy as the "owner" of the space... not even really applicable in this context.

I don't know the details of the other case, but I would probably guess the warrant was obtained on the grounds of blackmail in some form or the presence of audio... which is illegal. I doubt a warrant was issued just on the legal point of an alleged recording being present. Had the guy never said he was going to post it... there would never have been a problem. Again, as I've already stated, it is what you do with a video recording that makes it illegal... not the actual recording itself... although NY does seem to have written their law to be exponentially more restrictive than many other states' laws. Bully for them.