Outing of clients by Escorts

[KYTOP]

A few months ago an Escort outed an American Idol star and bleed it for his 15 minutes of fame and a start in the porn industry. Another escort just outs an evangelical minister because the client opposes gay marriage and he thinks the guy is a hypocrite. I'm aware of the BN thing a year or so ago but think that was an isolated case.

But is a new trend starting in outing clients?

Do you think that all the talk of male escorts in the news is going to make a few law enforcement agencies decide to start targeting our internet escort friends? Is your info on their computer... do you care... does it matter?

With the recent client outings are you starting to think twice about hiring or being more discreet in what info you give out about yourself?

[AdamSmith]

Regrettably I am starting to think twice about how much to reveal. Not because of the recent outings but, as you say, because law enforcement could seize on this as a new crusade. I hate thinking this way because I have never liked or practiced the huggermugger of concealing a lot of personal information from an escort.

[Lucky]

I am not in the least bit worried about it. I can't see where our discussion here about outing will activate the donut crowd to do anything. Assuming that it did, and an escort was busted, do you really think that the cops would then seize his computer to get info on his clients? If so, then Big Brother has arrived ahead of schedule. Cheney wasn't planning to do that until late 2007! The most they would learn about me is that I am a gay man who likes smooth, fit young guys, over 18, (really over 22) preferably Latin or Asian. Tell the world, I don't care!

For the record, I do not support outing of customers or escorts. This is a business that can be conducted with discretion. However, I do agree with the outing of Ted Haggard given his active opposition to gay rights and his continued efforts to fuck up the minds of young gays who are told that they are evil sinners when in reality they are just as good in the eyes of God as anyone else. As one who was raised to believe that sex itself was sinful, only to find out that the priests who preached that were themselves horny little buggers diddling boys themselves, I can only only hold great contempt for them.

[caeron]

I don't care overly. It would be inconvenient, but I could live with the world knowing I hired.

I've always believed that if you're an enemy of the gay community, you don't deserve our protection. I believe that we're in this together, and we don't out each other to protect each other from bigots.

But we don't 'owe' it to each other keep silent as some unbreakable oath. If you're really paranoid about being outed, then you should ensure no one knows your secret. Don't go to gay bars or the like, then act against us from the pulpit or the legislature the next day and expect our complicity. If we're not personal friends, and I know you're gay, then it isn't a secret.

Which brings me to escorts. There is a greater assumption of discretion/secrecy from an escort. But everything has its limits. If the person is a real enemy of the community, I think shielding them is the greater negative, though I wouldn't argue with an escort who chose to keep their secret - particularly since outing them probably terminates the escorts career.

[Lucky]

You'll think twice about carrying your laptop on board after you read Joe Sharkey's excellent column in today's NY Times. Does your escort carry a laptop?

On the Road

To Do List: Rename Laptop Files ‘Grandma’s Favorite Recipes’

by JOE SHARKEY

Published: November 7, 2006

A COUPLE of weeks ago, I wrote a column that reported two basic things about traveling abroad and back with a laptop that has sensitive business or personal information.

One is that anecdotal evidence indicates a growing number of laptops are being randomly and legally scrutinized, and some are even being seized without a reason given by customs agents when travelers return to the United States. And two, the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, a worldwide trade group representing corporate travel managers, is worried about how much proprietary corporate information may be at risk, and how companies can re-evaluate policies.

Association members are worried about what happens to sensitive data “if their computer with business information is seized,” Susan Gurley, the executive director of the group, wrote in a letter yesterday to officials at the Department of Homeland Security. She asked to know what the specific policies were. “Are copies made of the information?” she asked. “What safeguards do you have in place? Is the information destroyed? Is the downloaded and/or mirrored information stored somewhere and if yes, for how long? Who has access to it?”

As I said in the previous column, the travel managers’ group recently surveyed its 2,500 members and found that nearly 90 percent had no idea that customs and border agents have the legal authority to scrutinize contents of laptops randomly and even confiscate the laptops for an unspecified period of time, without invoking probable cause.

Last Friday, on behalf of a corporate client, the law firm of Arent Fox filed a Freedom of Information request with the Department of Homeland Security seeking all information related to “searches, forensic searches, temporary or permanent seizures and/or confiscations” of laptops at airports or other border crossings. The law firm also requested information about how many of these searches or seizures have been conducted randomly.

From what I can piece together, there are not a lot of laptops being seized, but travelers tell me that they see a lot more being opened, turned on and briefly scrutinized, evidently at random.

One e-mail correspondent told me that at Dulles International Airport several months ago as he returned from a business trip to Europe his laptop was seized in what he said he was told was a random search.

“After giving me and my shoes a thorough search, they moved on to my laptop,” he wrote. “On the desktop I had a folder named ‘Blueprints’ which contained, as labeled, blueprints for several potential designs for our company’s expansion in Madrid and Houston.”

He added, “My laptop was initially searched by one person, but he called for backup” when he saw the blueprints. “It seemed they were convinced I was sent to plant bombs in those nonexistent buildings.” He said he hasn’t seen the laptop since.

Eddie Baron, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Oklahoma, suggested that a “simple solution to the possible confiscation of a laptop is subterfuge.” He said that all data should be kept on a flash drive “that goes in your checked luggage or is Fedexed back and forth.” Other readers had other ways to avoid losing, or losing access to, important data, and we’ll look at some of them later as this issue gains traction among business travelers.

Personally, this all gives me some pause, even though there is nothing on my laptop that would have any conceivable value to anyone but me (O.K., maybe my long file marked “Cheryl Tiegs interview notes” is worth something on eBay).

But it is possible to convey mistaken impressions. For example, after I was on a plane involved in a midair collision in Brazil on Sept. 29, I had understandable professional, not to mention personal, curiosity about the cause of it, and had a file on my laptop called, “Mid-Air Collision: Cause.”

Returning through customs at Kennedy International Airport three days later, it did not occur to me that this file, had it been examined by a suspicious federal inspector, might have raised alarm, especially if the word “Cause” had been deemed to be an imperative.

“Hey, that’s nothing. I got a file on my desktop called “Terrorist Notes,” said Jack Riepe, a spokesman for the travel executives’ organization. “I’m keeping notes on writing a thriller, but maybe I should change the file to “Grandma’s Favorite Cookie Recipes.”

I told Mr. Riepe he should certainly do that before his next international trip, but that won’t buy him total safety, as even a Google inquiry will turn up the fact that he is the author of a 1999 book called “Politically Correct Cigar Smoking for Social Terrorists.”

“You’ll like the weather in Guantánamo,” I assured him.

“Can I take my motorcycle?” he asked.

“No.”

[TampaYankee]

I'm not convinced I see a trend on the overall scene. I have seen isolated escorts violate the rule of discretion for publicity or political causes. For the most part, targets seems to be celebrities of one ilk or another.

The instances of regular escorts outting regular clients seem to me slim. At the moment I can only think of one in recent times, and that IMO involved an unstable personality. That doesn't justify it but does put it in perspective.

Observing discretion starts at home. The best way to keep a secret is not to tell it anyone else. Your are putting your confidence into the hands of another. History is replete with violations of trust, even by trusted closest friends. There is almost always a reason -- publicity, personal gain or score settling. A friend is always a friend until he isn't.

In the early days of the HooBoy site as I recall, members were almost paranoid about their identities. Many would not post any information about themselves and the ideas of client gatherings was anathema. It was pretty much a secret society with anonymous members. As time passed members became more familiar with some members and with the gathering at large. Walls came down or at least transparency increased on the part of many. It was natural for this to happen between clients and escorts too.

Bottom line: Temper the information you reveal with the discretion you need or desire.

[Lucky]

"Bottom line: Temper the information you reveal with the discretion you need or desire."

But what about the tops?

[Guest Conway]

Who are you (or who am I for that matter) to determine who is worthy of being outed and who isn't? Do we limit this to gay political issues or is it now ok to out people who simply have different opinions regarding other politicdal or social issues too?

I think that the Denver escort lacks a certain amount of credibility, as would any escort who participated ion a long pay for sex affair with a public figure, in that he had no problem using the money of the religious right to keep a roof over his head.

I'm a politically conservative person who only lukewarmly supports some of the agenda that the gay political leadership spoon feeds me. Do I deserve to be outed for not accepting the entire "gay agenda" hook line and sinker?

Those who support outing anyone over political issues would be opening a Pandora's box of retribution from the other side.

The fact that someone like Tom Isern would even consider outting a client gives me one more reason, on top of many others, never to hire him.

[Guest comment]

The few cases you note are of high profile men who appear to have been outed for personal gain. An escort who would out me has little to gain.

I am guarded about what personal information I share with an escort just as I assume he might be with me. Any information that an escort might keep about me isn't a concern at all. I hardly feel that even the police in the USA have enough motivation to track me down for a victim-less event based on consent.

That said I have never put much faith in the so called professional code of silence between client and escort. I hear far too many escort - client tales from escorts whom just seem to always be fumbling to keep the conversation moving along. Apparently they must feel its an easy common connection to speak about. What they don't realize is how wrong their assumption has been.

[Guest RR]

I am not worried about an escort outing me. True in my city I am well respected and it would not go over so well. But, it would lead to no personal gain for the escort as I would refuse. I am very selective on email conversation and very general. I prefer the phone as to have no paper trail.

[Guest comment]

>I prefer the phone as to have no paper trail.

What about a tape trail?

Once contact is made with an escort, regardless of the form of contact, there really is no way to hide that communication.

[Guest StuCotts]

Conway --

I am late, but I can't let this nonsense pass.

Haggard is not one of those who "simply have different opinions". Until he brought his downfall on himself, he was a preacher on the national scene with a vast following who set himself up as an arbiter of Christian morality and values. He made a point of vilifying gays as subhuman and worthy only of execration in this life and hellfire in the next. That earned him any chastisement he has gotten, and then some.

Your point about the escort's scant credibility: you mean compared to Haggard's? The money the escort earned did not come from a criminal activity, unless you consider Haggard a criminal for preaching vicious unChristian lies to docile simpletons.

As a "politically conservative person" you are not obliged to support the gay agenda or any other that doesn't appeal to you. You are also not obliged to subscribe to the right-wing tenet: Personal accountability for thee, but not for me. But you do.

I'm intrigued by your threat of "retribition from the other side". Do you mean that some preacher may out an escort for being churchgoing?

Last I heard, Isern's business appears to have survived your boycott.

[Guest PWIT]

What's up Stu? May want to pull the shorts out of your ass a bit. It just seems like the intensity of your reply to Conway was a little over the top. But one can often not get a true sense of emotion from the written word, so I may just be reading too much into your reply.

[Guest StuCotts]

In the same spirit of fun, I'll say that you may want to pull your head out of yours.

Tell you what. If you don't try to tell me what I should feel or not feel strongly about, I'll return the favor.

[Guest twinklover]

The image of right-wing preachers, politicians and sycophants engaged with male escorts is salaciously amusing. But I'm opposed to outing anyone under any circumstances where the express or implied agreement between escort and client includes "being discreet" or confidentiality or privacy. That applies to "outing" any escort or client or otherwise revealing any confidential or private info about them. I would think this would be an "absolute given" for both escorts and clients.

[Guest Conway]

I hope you don't take my opinion any less seriously that I take yours. I'd certainly never refer to yours as nonsense on this forum or elsewhere.

The point, I'm trying to make that while, in your mind, it's ok to out Haggard becaise of his religious positions, who are you or anyone else to make that judgement. At one point in our lives, we were all in the closet for ?one reason or another. In my case, I was given the luxury of coming out on my terms rather than the terms of someone else.

And that's the way it should be. Even if you're the same kind of hypocrite as Chuck Haggard. If we start outting people based upon their opposition to the mainstream gay political agenda, where will it stop?

The outting of Chuck Haggard changed the view of very few, if any, people where the issue of civil rights for gay people is concerned. I would go so far as to say that it probably further isolated those on the far social right and in the political middle.

The purpose of acts of civil disobedience should be to bring understanding and awareness to the issues of a group. Matt Jones may feel better now that he's outted Chuck Haggard. But, he's hardly changed the landscape of opinion where gay civil rights are concerned.

Pedro Zamora changed that landscape. Ryan White changed that landscape. And, in his tragic death, Matthew Shepard changed that landscape.

Now that Pandora's box of outting has been opened, I expect to see much more useless outting of innocent people who are being leveraged by those of different political opinions than theirs. It wil probably be the right doing it far more than the left.

The outting of another person because his beliefs are different than yours is not civil disobedience. That's petty retribution.

[Guest PWIT]

>In the same spirit of fun, I'll say that you may want to pull

>your head out of yours.

>

>Tell you what. If you don't try to tell me what I should feel

>or not feel strongly about, I'll return the favor.

Take the chip off your shoulder and re-read my comments and you will see I did not tell you what you should or shouldn't feel strongly about. It was a critique of the manner of your response. And you didn't take your own advice w/ Conwayr. Anyway, wish you peace.

[KYTOP]

>Your point about the escort's scant credibility: you mean

>compared to Haggard's? The money the escort earned did not

>come from a criminal activity, unless you consider Haggard a

>criminal for preaching vicious unChristian lies to docile

>simpletons.

Actually getting money for selling drugs to Haggard is criminal activity and probably what the escort needs to be concerned most about.

>I'm intrigued by your threat of "retribition from the

>other side". Do you mean that some preacher may out an

>escort for being churchgoing?

Luckily for most escort and those of us that hire, Internet Male Escorts have been under most radar screens. Unfortunately raising the awareness of internet Male Escorts to the level of the lead story on the evening news will probably make it lot easier for "the other side" to get the authorities to start targeting these guys. Other than Vegas, were the police apparently use Criag's list to bust escorts, I don't know of authorities actively seeking out internet escorts from Rentboy, men4rent, this or other Escort websites.

[KYTOP]

>Now that Pandora's box of outting has been opened, I expect to

>see much more useless outting of innocent people who are being

>leveraged by those of different political opinions than

>theirs. It wil probably be the right doing it far more than

>the left.

I'm wondering when some Escort will out a NFL or other pro athlete because they think they are being a hypocrite by staying in the closet and hurting the cause for all gay athletes.

>The outting of another person because his beliefs are

>different than yours is not civil disobedience. That's petty

>retribution.

And as the snowball starts rolling, will will it stop?

[BigK]

All of you advocating outing these people are HYPOCRITES, just like the people you advocate outing. Lets reason this logically, If I like you and what your beliefs are I would never out you, but if I don't like you or your beliefs I should out you. What bullshit!

The gay community faces its own challenges with hatred from others. So we shouldn't feed on our selfs. These hypocritical high profile people have their own personal hell to deal with.

The extreme haters in the gay community hold us back more then the majority of the population which given the chance would be supportive.

[marcanthony]

>The extreme haters in the gay community hold us back more then

>the majority of the population which given the chance would be

>supportive.

I am not a big fan of outing...and I am not a big fan of hypocrites. But I really don't think I can agree with this statement.

I think that in 2006, in the United States anyway (and many other hugely populated countries in the rest of the world), it's clear that though it's a smaller majority than it was before, it is still the majority that is NOT supportive of equal rights for gays.

Do I think that someday our country will be enlightened enough to understand that sexual orientation is not the sole way to label and judge a person? I think that may happen someday.

But as I watch state after state pass amendments to their constitutions barring either marriage or civil unions (thank you Arizona), I have to come to the conclustion that that day is not today.

[Guest SouthernMan]

>>But as I watch state after state pass amendments to their

>constitutions barring either marriage or civil unions (thank

>you Arizona), I have to come to the conclustion that that day

>is not today.

I believe that it was Virginia which overwhelmingly approved a ban on marriage/civil ceremonies between two men or two women, and that it was Arizona that overwhelmingly defeated a similiar amendment.

[marcanthony]

>>>But as I watch state after state pass amendments to

>their

>>constitutions barring either marriage or civil unions

>(thank

>>you Arizona), I have to come to the conclustion that that

>day

>>is not today.

>

>I believe that it was Virginia which overwhelmingly approved a

>ban on marriage/civil ceremonies between two men or two women,

>and that it was Arizona that overwhelmingly defeated a

>similiar amendment.

yes, actually this election year, I think Virginia, Sout Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado (home of the outed minister), South Dakota, Wisconsiin, and Idaho joined the ranks of states who have passed bans. I said thank you Arizona because they are the first set of voters who actually defeated such a measure. Previous to this, all rights conferred upon gay couples were granted by courts, not by electorates. My point remains... i don't think we are at the point where we can say that "a majority" of people in our country would embrace a completely non-discriminatory policy towards gays.

[Lucky]

I find BigK's remark quite insulting. It makes me wonder if the guys most against outing are themselves in the closet. As someone who is out of the closet, and was very active in helping move gay presence forward, I resent those who do nothing but hide their sexuality all the time taking advantage of the progress that the out guys have created for them.

It is not hypocritical to out people whose internal homophobia is damaging to our community, people like Haggard who actively worked against gay rights and poisoned the minds of young people dealing with their sexuality.

I agree with everyone else that coming out is up to the individual to do when he is ready. I also agree that it is okay to own a gun. But if you are going to use that gun to hurt someone, then I will tell people that you have one. Haggard and his ilk are taking guns to young minds and causing immeasurable harm.

[BigK]

>

>>The extreme haters in the gay community hold us back more

>then

>>the majority of the population which given the chance

>would be

>>supportive.

>

>I am not a big fan of outing...and I am not a big fan of

>hypocrites. But I really don't think I can agree with this

>statement.

>

>

Marc,

Haters may have been the wrong choice of word, I guess I wanted my emphasis on the word extreme. I know my view is unpopular, but I believe that we would find the majority of the population supportive if we dropped the word marriage and focused on civil unions. Marriage is the hot button here. The concept of marriage is inexorably intertwined with religion. I think we make a mistake taking on organized religions and would make change faster if we focused on civil unions as a fairness issue instead. We are already gaining support on the issue of civil rights as evidenced by some enlightened corporations who have who have recognized same sex unions with benefits similar to opposite sex unions.

I am not advocating being an apologist, just a little less "in your face" behavior.