DC Area Escort Phone Records

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

D.C. Madame to Sell 10,000 Phone Records of High-End Washington Clients

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0307/DC_Madame_to_Sell_10000_Phone_Records_of_HighEnd_Washington_Clients.html

[i]
Deborah J. Palfrey is unhappy. And, if you know who Deborah J. Palfrey is?and especially if you know her by Jeane?you probably don’t want her unhappy. From 1993 until this past summer, Palfrey ran Pamela Martin and Associates, a “high-end adult fantasy firm which offered legal sexual and erotic services across the spectrum of adult sexual behavior,” according to a statement she put out today hoping to raise funds for her legal defense.

The way she plans to raise those funds could reverberate through Washington’s power corridors. She is considering “selling the entire 46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records for the 13 year period,” reports The Politico’s Ryan Grim. In October, the Internal Revenue Service seized her assets; the sale of the records would fund her fight against the seizure.

Palfrey released what she said were a sample of the records, which don’t include names, but do feature a number of Washington area exchanges.

Her attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, said that prices have yet to be set for the data. “We don’t actually know that yet,” he said, “because we haven’t finished mining the data to identify the individuals. Obviously if Bill Clinton’s on the list that’s a different matter than you know, somebody nobody’s ever heard of before.”

But, he said, chances are good that some interesting names will pop up. “Statistically, if you have 10,000 people, and given the structure of this particular service, these weren’t people beckoning from car windows,” he said. “The escorts only responded to four and five star hotels or private residences. And so the landlines will show up on the private residences real quickly.”[/i]

My questions: Should it be illegal to solicit sex from a willing entrepreneur?

Should this "madame" be allowed to sell her customer's private information?

My opinion:  

It's just sex.  

If companies can get sued for mishandleing private information why should this be treated any differently?
2

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

If companies can get sued for mishandleing private information why should this be treated any differently?[/quote]

Depends on whether the company in question has a statutory or contractual duty to protect the information. Medical info and banking information is statutorily protected – I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…

3

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…
[/quote]

Don’t you think her clients assumed their privacy would be respected due to the nature of the business? If I paid upward of $500 for a service you can be certain I would expect a certain amount of discretion by the provider.

4

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…

Don’t you think her clients assumed their privacy would be respected due to the nature of the business? If I paid upward of $500 for a service you can be certain I would expect a certain amount of discretion by the provider.[/quote]

But you can also expect a criminal to sell you out if they are desperate.

Don’t entrust your honor to a hooker.

5

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Depends on whether the company in question has a statutory or contractual duty to protect the information. Medical info and banking information is statutorily protected – I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…[/quote]

Couldn’t this quite easily be interpreted as blackmail and/or fraud? If she maintains the calls are not solicitous in nature and that she’s not guilty of prostitution (etc.), then they should be valueless, but if they are valuable then they must be solicitous and she is therefore guilty of prostitution.

6

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…

Don’t you think her clients assumed their privacy would be respected due to the nature of the business? If I paid upward of $500 for a service you can be certain I would expect a certain amount of discretion by the provider.

But you can also expect a criminal to sell you out if they are desperate.

Don’t entrust your honor to a hooker.[/quote]

Exactly why it shouldn’t be illegal.

7

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Don’t you think her clients assumed their privacy would be respected due to the nature of the business? If I paid upward of $500 for a service you can be certain I would expect a certain amount of discretion by the provider.[/quote]

They may have, but such an assumption isn’t worth the paper it’s written on…

8

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Depends on whether the company in question has a statutory or contractual duty to protect the information. Medical info and banking information is statutorily protected – I’m fairly certain phone numbers are not protected that way (though use of them for marketing is restricted by “Do not call” list legislation/regulations), and even more certain that the clients didn’t bother to check on the madame’s privacy policy…

lucasa wrote:
Couldn’t this quite easily be interpreted as blackmail and/or fraud? If she maintains the calls are not solicitous in nature and that she’s not guilty of prostitution (etc.), then they should be valueless, but if they are valuable then they must be solicitous and she is therefore guilty of prostitution.[/quote]

It could be considered blackmail, but someone would have to step up and admit to being in the records to make the charge – besides which, if she fully intends to sell and doesn’t ask for money (from the people in the records, not the buyer), you wouldn’t get very far.

No fraud – she’s not lying about the records. The underlying assumption may be correct or incorrect, but unless she’s warrantying that they were used for prostitution, whether they were or not is just an assumption made by the buyer.

9

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

They may have, but such an assumption isn’t worth the paper it’s written on…
[/quote]

But in this article it states that the activities were allegedly legal. Now, I am not so much of a naive ninny that I underestimate human nature. If it is considered legal activities–i.e., fantasy role-play and no sexual intercourse or sodomy is performed, etc.–then why would you risk losing business (or a lawsuit) by selling out your “legal” customers.

No one wants to answer the ethical/moral questions I posed?

Should prostitution be illegal? Does the State have an obligation to protect the morality of its citizenry?

10

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No one wants to answer the ethical/moral questions I posed?

Should prostitution be illegal? Does the State have an obligation to protect the morality of its citizenry?[/quote]

I am not sure others thought this the thrust of your question.

I will offer an answer: I am fine with prostitution being illegal, and the state does have an obligation to protect the morality of its citzenry.

States have an interest not just in liberty, but ordered liberty.

11

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

They may have, but such an assumption isn’t worth the paper it’s written on…

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But in this article it states that the activities were allegedly legal. Now, I am not so much of a naive ninny that I underestimate human nature. If it is considered legal activities–i.e., fantasy role-play and no sexual intercourse or sodomy is performed, etc.–then why would you risk losing business (or a lawsuit) by selling out your “legal” customers.

No one wants to answer the ethical/moral questions I posed?

Should prostitution be illegal? Does the State have an obligation to protect the morality of its citizenry?[/quote]

I was just commenting on why she wouldn’t have much to fear from a lawsuit. The business would be dead.

The prostitution question comes down, in my mind, to whether you believe women need to be protected - i.e. not allowed to sell the use of their bodies for sex, much like people are protected by not being allowed to sell themselves into slavery or indentured servitude.

12

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Should prostitution be illegal? Does the State have an obligation to protect the morality of its citizenry?[/quote]

Prostitution occurs whether it’s legal or not. I think it should be legal. You can then regulate it; collect income tax; make sure the “providers” have regular health checkups, etc.

You can also concentrate the repression and police actions on the truly immoral stuff: Child pornography and related paedophile activities.

The obligation of the state should not interfere with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. The state’s obligations should be to ensure that whatever is being done is between adults and that consent is present. Period. When these two conditions are present, the state should stay out of our business.

13

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

It’s just sex.

…

No one wants to answer the ethical/moral questions I posed?

Should prostitution be illegal? Does the State have an obligation to protect the morality of its citizenry?[/quote]

I disagree. I think it should be gov’t regulated (read taxed, licensed, and bureaucracied to appropriate proclivity) if not illegal. It undermines the idea of family and community. Not so much from the Bible-thumping “It’s a moral sin!” standpoint. More that if I could get sex for money legally, why would I get married, by a house, raise kids, etc.? Or as a prostitute, If I could get money for sex, why would I get married, raise kids, etc.?

Even in this case, IMO, the rich and successful sacrificing the opportunity cost of potentially reproductive sex with a partner contrasted against the destitute taking advantage of reproductively-oriented sex rather than prostitution points to more stupid/poor people and fewer intelligent/rich people. And allowing people to get paid for it is like subsidizing the whole affair (pun intended). I agree with people’s right to exchange bodily fluids as freely as they wish, and you can’t force anyone to have a family. But, IMO, the gov’t should be able to set up rules such that individuals don’t siphon their incomes off into arguably anti-societal and arguably self-destructive behavior. Two people want to have sex? Fine. Just one shouldn’t pay the other to go find someone else to have sex with the next day.

Not to mention the spread of disease increases proportionately and the last thing we need is to burden our healthcare system.

I guess it’s institutionalized either way you slice it. And IMO, it’s easier/better to protect the institution of marriage rather than industrialize and govern a sex trade.

Additionally, if prostitution carried some inherent benefits as an industry every town would be Las Vegas and rather than regions like the grain belt or the steel belt, we’d have prostitution belts (again, pun intended).

14

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The prostitution question comes down, in my mind, to whether you believe women need to be protected - i.e. not allowed to sell the use of their bodies for sex, much like people are protected by not being allowed to sell themselves into slavery or indentured servitude.[/quote]

Do you consider all sex workers as being indentured servants? I agree with you in places where prostitution is taboo women are treated like property in the name of protection. If the state legalized it prostitutes wouldn’t need a pimp for protection and thus they would be considered entrepreneurs instead of property. They could pay taxes; they could get regular health checks; they wouldn’t be relegated to working seedy corners with the threat of violence looming over them.

What is the difference between selling sex and selling booze besides the most obvious difference?

To me the legality issue seems more like regulating morality. I understand the health risks and the amount of danger involved in this profession but like the drug issue it comes down to personal choices. We devote so many resources to stopping human beings from exercising their humanness which seems to me like a big waste. It would be better spent on helping people that actually want or need the help–not wasting it on a lost cause.

15

[quote]lucasa wrote:
It undermines the idea of family and community. Not so much from the Bible-thumping “It’s a moral sin!” standpoint. More that if I could get sex for money legally, why would I get married, by a house, raise kids, etc.? Or as a prostitute, If I could get money for sex, why would I get married, raise kids, etc.?
[/quote]

Prostitution is not that big of a threat to traditional values. It is the oldest profession on the planet so by your srgument the institution of marriage would never have taken hold if it were true. Besides, poor people will still get married because it costs too much to pay every time one gets horny.

Good points, but I think a little farfetched. I don’t think women, en masse, would shun their traditional roles because all of the sudden prostitution became legalized. In Amsterdam in the “red light district” prostitution is out in the open and just part of the neighborhood. I am talking families with children and everything. They don’t view it as immoral or wrong. It is just a part of nature and as such has found its way into free-enterprise.

16

[quote]pookie wrote:

When these two conditions are present, the state should stay out of our business.
[/quote]

I don’t consider what two people do in the bedroom to be business. No matter how good either one of them may look in a button-down dress shirt! :slight_smile:

17

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What is the difference between selling sex and selling booze besides the most obvious difference?[/quote]

Just so I know I’m following along correctly, are you arguing against the excuse of ‘objectification of women’ by objectifying women?

That’s funny, when I learned about ‘exercising my humanness’ it didn’t involve a lesson in economics.

18

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Just so I know I’m following along correctly, are you arguing against the excuse of ‘objectification of women’ by objectifying women?
[/quote]

Women are no more objectified by prostituion than men are. How can a whole class of people be objectified by the actions of a few? Besides this if one enters into a chosen profession then they can no longer be a victim?

19

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Prostitution is not that big of a threat to traditional values. It is the oldest profession on the planet so by your argument the institution of marriage would never have taken hold if it were true.[/quote]

The same could be said of any institution and even civilization itself. Animals have roamed in packs for untold ages. Why would agriculture, communities, linguistics, economics, etc., etc. take hold unless there were some inherent benefits?

You could easily say that we’re not in dire need of the ‘survival mindset’ and don’t necessarily need to be acting as a community to ensure our survival, but I disagree, especially the more intelligent among us.

If I’m not mistaken, the statistics distinctly disagree with you. I can’t whip up an internet reference at the moment, but I’m pretty sure the children/marriage ration is much higher in more impoverished neighborhoods and parts of the world.

I’ll admit to being a little fatalistic, but I don’t think my exaggeration on the part of men was too overplayed. More my point was institutionalizing marriage is does have benefits that do counterbalance the “freedoms” sacrificed by outlawing prostitution.

Yeah, but De Wallen has problems with pimps (surprise! pimps are there for profits, not protection) and human traffickers. My understanding is that the health services go largely unused as well. Further, even if the pimps and traffickers are cleaned up, you still have motel owners charging to provide facilities security, which, I assume, one of the two consenting adults already provides for him/her self. I’m not advocating they go in and clean up the red light district, just that spreading it may not be the best idea.

And I’m reluctant to play this card because I don’t buy all the propaganda behind it, but exposing children to that at younger ages can’t be good for them either.

20

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

No fraud – she’s not lying about the records. The underlying assumption may be correct or incorrect, but unless she’s warrantying that they were used for prostitution, whether they were or not is just an assumption made by the buyer.[/quote]

I’m sure you’re probably right, I just mean to clarify. Her plea is in no way warrantying the solicitous nature of the phone calls?