Cameras Located Within Agency and Provider Incall Spaces

[not_a_drugdealer]

Because when someone is having sex or is unclothed, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

I never said filming people having sex or naked without consent is ok

Skyline, AF, and many of the agencies and providers mentioned here are filming people having sex or naked

[Silverfox]

Since he is a reputable lawyer receiving payment to represent a client, there is no issue with him issuing an official statement on his law firm's stationery and letterhead. This has nothing to do with him being a "pooner,", he can deny that and merely say he is representing a client. Doing so would enhance both his credibility and yours, as his current portrayal makes him seem like the worst lawyer in Canada.

He’s not getting paid, he is my friend 
Not even a client so not getting any benefits for him taking time to check &clarify shit with me  
He’s always been happy to give me advice & not afraid to call me out on shit when I go wrong 
Pls stop insulting my friend 
At this point I only ask him to make sure I understand what I’m saying, like when I was taking law classes 
I’m not trying to attack anyone here in a formal legal manner. I am trying to debate with facts 
I am being extremely patient rn

---

But seriously pls stop insulting my friend by saying he is inexperienced and the worst lawyer in Canada. That accusation is absolutely ridiculous
Shut the fuck up really you have no clue

Okay, if he hasn't conducted proper research on the subject and isn't practicing the specific type of law relevant to this situation, he's no more of an expert than anyone else here. Additionally, you're the only one asserting that this is legal, yet you haven't backed it up with any citations or a strong argument.

[darwin]

But full stop on saying anything derogatory about him
It’s hard to have real friends in this biz & he has been an amazing platonic buddy to me for a very long time. Abd an extremely bright guy trust me I know
Thou shalt not insult Miss Hs friends . #1 rule

---

At one point I thought he would fit in here cuz he’s successful, wealthy unfiltered and appreciates real legit reviews
But you guys have gone so far off the rails even he isn’t impressed and he was once considered to be one of the most obnoxious assholes on perb
If even he is hesitant about coming here now that’s a huge red flag
Anyone here who has been on perb a long time should have an idea of who I’m talking about

What kind of lawyer hides behind an escort to shield him from perfectly valid criticism? This is quite strange, to say the least.

---

I never said filming people having sex or naked without consent is ok

Skyline, AF, and many of the agencies and providers mentioned here are filming people having sex or naked

Apparently Hunter does it, too. Although the thread regarding her specifically is "redacted for legal reasons."

[Wario]

But full stop on saying anything derogatory about him
It’s hard to have real friends in this biz & he has been an amazing platonic buddy to me for a very long time. Abd an extremely bright guy trust me I know
Thou shalt not insult Miss Hs friends . #1 rule

---

At one point I thought he would fit in here cuz he’s successful, wealthy unfiltered and appreciates real legit reviews
But you guys have gone so far off the rails even he isn’t impressed and he was once considered to be one of the most obnoxious assholes on perb
If even he is hesitant about coming here now that’s a huge red flag
Anyone here who has been on perb a long time should have an idea of who I’m talking about

What kind of lawyer hides behind an escort to shield him from perfectly valid criticism? This is quite strange, to say the least.

---

Skyline, AF, and many of the agencies and providers mentioned here are filming people having sex or naked

Apparently Hunter does it, too. Although the thread regarding her specifically is "redacted for legal reasons."

Hunter is employed by Skyline and uses their spaces, Skyline one of the agencies that has cameras positioned in the same room where the sex is taking place, which is illegal.
Skyline's studio apartments are also quite small, with the bathroom situated right next to the front door. Although they claim their cameras are aimed at the front entrance, they could still capture a naked person leaving the bathroom, especially if he is unaware of the cameras or forgets about their presence in the heat of the moment.

You don't even need to have been to Skyline to know this, you can find the blueprints of their studio apartment layouts online. Once you review them, it becomes clear that if a guy takes just one wrong step, he's being filmed naked.

Regardless, since it's a studio apartment, the fact that the cameras are in the same room where sex is happening is illegal in multiple ways, especially considering that they also record sound.

Her entire argument about a "reasonable expectation of privacy" falls apart because the agencies are required to obtain the client's consent for the cameras. Since none of these agencies advertise that they have cameras, they are definitely not asking for or obtaining that consent.

So yes, Ms Hunter is guilty in this as well. 
If I were Ms. Hunter, I would be upset with my employer, Skyline, for not defending her, and for putting her at risk of legal issues.

[MB_]

One positive aspect of this is that, aside from Nicole Vixen, there are no objectively attractive providers with cameras inside their incalls. Moreover, there arent any objectively attractive escorts working at the agencies who have cameras inside their incalls.

So, at least clients who choose to avoid these escorts and agencies moving forward aren't really missing out.

[Wario]

One positive aspect of this is that, aside from Nicole Vixen, there are no objectively attractive providers with cameras inside their incalls. Moreover, there arent any objectively attractive escorts working at the agencies who have cameras inside their incalls.

So, at least clients who choose to avoid these escorts and agencies moving forward aren't really missing out.

I agree with this, at least regarding the girls and agencies mentioned in this thread. There's not much to miss out on, most are average or below average in appearance, except for Nicole Vixen.

The only other attractive one I would add is M3gan at AF, she's really hot.
We gotta convince Megan to leave AF to join another agency.

Personally, I will not be visiting any agencies or providers that have cameras inside their incall locations.

[razzar1234]

One positive aspect of this is that, aside from Nicole Vixen, there are no objectively attractive providers with cameras inside their incalls. Moreover, there arent any objectively attractive escorts working at the agencies who have cameras inside their incalls.

So, at least clients who choose to avoid these escorts and agencies moving forward aren't really missing out.

I agree with this, at least regarding the girls and agencies mentioned in this thread. There's not much to miss out on, most are average or below average in appearance, except for Nicole Vixen.

The only other attractive one I would add is M3gan at AF, she's really hot.
We gotta convince Megan to leave AF to join another agency.

Personally, I will not be visiting any agencies or providers that have cameras inside their incall locations.

I remember seeing her profile on seeking, though i may be confusing her with the equally attractive silvia who also used to work with AF.

[Marko]

Personally, I will not be visiting any agencies or providers that have cameras inside their incall locations.

Same here. I won't be booking with AF now that I know they have cameras inside their incall.

I remember seeing her profile on seeking, though i may be confusing her with the equally attractive silvia who also used to work with AF.

She returned to AF (but with less extras now).

[Marko]

Your board lawyer hasn’t either

So why should I bother myself??

But yeah I would love to see citations that prove me wrong

---

No users on Menz are affiliated with Menz in any capacity. Altay also bears no responsibility for what happens on this forum. Only I have the keys, so ultimately only I am to blame. And only I pay the bills here too. And Menz is a gentlemen only club. That means only men. You can respond to your own reviews or criticism but not partake elsewhere on this platform.

One positive aspect of this is that, aside from Nicole Vixen, there are no objectively attractive providers with cameras inside their incalls. Moreover, there arent any objectively attractive escorts working at the agencies who have cameras inside their incalls.

So, at least clients who choose to avoid these escorts and agencies moving forward aren't really missing out.

Nicole is maybe the highest rated escort on Menz, she is also one of the only escorts on Tryst in Vancouver that doesn't ask for government ID. And I guess that is because she is recording your face when you walk in her door. I do understand that safety aspect of doing this, but what this thread is about is transparency. It's perfectly fine to record people as long as you alert them about it. Will Nicole lose business because of this thread? Highly doubt it. The sad fact is most clients don't care about their own privacy.

[aceee]

Nicole is maybe the highest rated escort on Menz, she is also one of the only escorts on Tryst in Vancouver that doesn't ask for government ID. Will Nicole lose business because of this thread? Highly doubt it. The sad fact is most clients don't care about their own privacy.

That is not accurate, most on Tryst do not require government ID for booking.

Nicole Vixen has lost my business.

[razzar1234]

Nicole is maybe the highest rated escort on Menz, she is also one of the only escorts on Tryst in Vancouver that doesn't ask for government ID. Will Nicole lose business because of this thread? Highly doubt it. The sad fact is most clients don't care about their own privacy.

That is not accurate, most on Tryst do not require government ID for booking.

Nicole Vixen has lost my business.

Maybe "most" is the wrong word to use. But on tryst, you're far more likely to be asked for ID or some other invasive screening than other platforms.

[Silverfox]

Nicole Vixen has lost my business.

I would have to say she has also lost my business, unfortunately.

That might change if she agreed to stop using the camera, but given her silence, that seems unlikely.

[classicman]

Criminal Code: Voyeurism (s. 162)
Section 162(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to surreptitiously record someone:

who is nude or engaging in explicit sexual activity,

and in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,

for a sexual purpose
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...hatgpt.com

Under BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, an “intimate image” includes any photo or video depicting nudity or sexual activity in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sharing such images without consent is illegal, even if you took them in a private setting with consent for the act itself (if it is being viewed or livestreamed to the agency or provider, or even if it the video is being temporarily stored on the device or cloud it is being "shared")
Source: https://clasbc.net/get-legal-help/stand-...hatgpt.com

⚖️ Supreme Court & Consent
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis (2019) confirmed that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in non-traditional spaces (e.g., workplace cubicles), and consent to share something does not imply consent to record it its video or audio
fedorowiczlaw.com
Additionally, legal opinions and case law show that not telling a partner you're recording, even a private sexual act, means they did not consent to the recording, which can invalidate consent altogether .
So if they do not ask for consent to be recording it is illegal
Source :https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bottom line: A Ring camera capturing nudity or the sound of intimacy in a private space without explicit consent is illegal in BC under both Criminal Code and provincial intimate image laws. Recording general outdoor video/audio is typically allowed with one-party consent—just don’t violate privacy expectations.

[lotlizard]

Criminal Code: Voyeurism (s. 162)
Section 162(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to surreptitiously record someone:

who is nude or engaging in explicit sexual activity,

and in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,

for a sexual purpose
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...hatgpt.com

Under BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, an “intimate image” includes any photo or video depicting nudity or sexual activity in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sharing such images without consent is illegal, even if you took them in a private setting with consent for the act itself (if it is being viewed or livestreamed to the agency or provider, or even if it the video is being temporarily stored on the device or cloud it is being "shared")
Source: https://clasbc.net/get-legal-help/stand-...hatgpt.com

⚖️ Supreme Court & Consent
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis (2019) confirmed that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in non-traditional spaces (e.g., workplace cubicles), and consent to share something does not imply consent to record it its video or audio
fedorowiczlaw.com
Additionally, legal opinions and case law show that not telling a partner you're recording, even a private sexual act, means they did not consent to the recording, which can invalidate consent altogether .
So if they do not ask for consent to be recording it is illegal
Source :https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bottom line: A Ring camera capturing nudity or the sound of intimacy in a private space without explicit consent is illegal in BC under both Criminal Code and provincial intimate image laws. Recording general outdoor video/audio is typically allowed with one-party consent—just don’t violate privacy expectations.

I didn’t know office cubicles fall under reasonable expectation of privacy. Thank you for posting

[MissHunter]

Criminal Code: Voyeurism (s. 162)
Section 162(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to surreptitiously record someone:

who is nude or engaging in explicit sexual activity,

and in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,

for a sexual purpose
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...hatgpt.com

Under BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, an “intimate image” includes any photo or video depicting nudity or sexual activity in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sharing such images without consent is illegal, even if you took them in a private setting with consent for the act itself (if it is being viewed or livestreamed to the agency or provider, or even if it the video is being temporarily stored on the device or cloud it is being "shared")
Source: https://clasbc.net/get-legal-help/stand-...hatgpt.com

⚖️ Supreme Court & Consent
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis (2019) confirmed that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in non-traditional spaces (e.g., workplace cubicles), and consent to share something does not imply consent to record it its video or audio
fedorowiczlaw.com
Additionally, legal opinions and case law show that not telling a partner you're recording, even a private sexual act, means they did not consent to the recording, which can invalidate consent altogether .
So if they do not ask for consent to be recording it is illegal
Source :https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bottom line: A Ring camera capturing nudity or the sound of intimacy in a private space without explicit consent is illegal in BC under both Criminal Code and provincial intimate image laws. Recording general outdoor video/audio is typically allowed with one-party consent—just don’t violate privacy expectations.

I didn’t know office cubicles fall under reasonable expectation of privacy. Thank you for posting

I didn’t know that either. Learned something new today

[Wario]

Criminal Code: Voyeurism (s. 162)
Section 162(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to surreptitiously record someone:

who is nude or engaging in explicit sexual activity,

and in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,

for a sexual purpose
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...hatgpt.com

Under BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, an “intimate image” includes any photo or video depicting nudity or sexual activity in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sharing such images without consent is illegal, even if you took them in a private setting with consent for the act itself (if it is being viewed or livestreamed to the agency or provider, or even if it the video is being temporarily stored on the device or cloud it is being "shared")
Source: https://clasbc.net/get-legal-help/stand-...hatgpt.com

⚖️ Supreme Court & Consent
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis (2019) confirmed that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in non-traditional spaces (e.g., workplace cubicles), and consent to share something does not imply consent to record it its video or audio
fedorowiczlaw.com
Additionally, legal opinions and case law show that not telling a partner you're recording, even a private sexual act, means they did not consent to the recording, which can invalidate consent altogether .
So if they do not ask for consent to be recording it is illegal
Source :https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bottom line: A Ring camera capturing nudity or the sound of intimacy in a private space without explicit consent is illegal in BC under both Criminal Code and provincial intimate image laws. Recording general outdoor video/audio is typically allowed with one-party consent—just don’t violate privacy expectations.

So essentially,
If the agency or provider does not give prior warning to the client and does not obtain explicit consent for filming with cameras inside the incall were nudity and sexual activity is occurring, it is considered illegal.

[MB_]

Criminal Code: Voyeurism (s. 162)
Section 162(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to surreptitiously record someone:

who is nude or engaging in explicit sexual activity,

and in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,

for a sexual purpose
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...hatgpt.com

Under BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, an “intimate image” includes any photo or video depicting nudity or sexual activity in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sharing such images without consent is illegal, even if you took them in a private setting with consent for the act itself (if it is being viewed or livestreamed to the agency or provider, or even if it the video is being temporarily stored on the device or cloud it is being "shared")
Source: https://clasbc.net/get-legal-help/stand-...hatgpt.com

⚖️ Supreme Court & Consent
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis (2019) confirmed that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in non-traditional spaces (e.g., workplace cubicles), and consent to share something does not imply consent to record it its video or audio
fedorowiczlaw.com
Additionally, legal opinions and case law show that not telling a partner you're recording, even a private sexual act, means they did not consent to the recording, which can invalidate consent altogether .
So if they do not ask for consent to be recording it is illegal
Source :https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bottom line: A Ring camera capturing nudity or the sound of intimacy in a private space without explicit consent is illegal in BC under both Criminal Code and provincial intimate image laws. Recording general outdoor video/audio is typically allowed with one-party consent—just don’t violate privacy expectations.

So essentially,
If the agency or provider does not give prior warning to the client and does not obtain explicit consent for filming with cameras inside the incall were nudity and sexual activity is occurring, it is considered illegal.

Yep, pretty much what everyone has been saying in this thread and others threads this whole time, someone just actually provided citations haha

[Boomba]

Criminal Code: Voyeurism (s. 162)
Section 162(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to surreptitiously record someone:

who is nude or engaging in explicit sexual activity,

and in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,

for a sexual purpose
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts...hatgpt.com

Under BC’s Intimate Images Protection Act, an “intimate image” includes any photo or video depicting nudity or sexual activity in a context with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sharing such images without consent is illegal, even if you took them in a private setting with consent for the act itself (if it is being viewed or livestreamed to the agency or provider, or even if it the video is being temporarily stored on the device or cloud it is being "shared")
Source: https://clasbc.net/get-legal-help/stand-...hatgpt.com

⚖️ Supreme Court & Consent
The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis (2019) confirmed that you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in non-traditional spaces (e.g., workplace cubicles), and consent to share something does not imply consent to record it its video or audio
fedorowiczlaw.com
Additionally, legal opinions and case law show that not telling a partner you're recording, even a private sexual act, means they did not consent to the recording, which can invalidate consent altogether .
So if they do not ask for consent to be recording it is illegal
Source :https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bottom line: A Ring camera capturing nudity or the sound of intimacy in a private space without explicit consent is illegal in BC under both Criminal Code and provincial intimate image laws. Recording general outdoor video/audio is typically allowed with one-party consent—just don’t violate privacy expectations.

So essentially,
If the agency or provider does not give prior warning to the client and does not obtain explicit consent for filming with cameras inside the incall were nudity and sexual activity is occurring, it is considered illegal.

Currently, the way these agencies and providers are using their cameras inside their incall locations violates several serious laws. 
Is there any way they could continue this practice lawfully? 
Are there any methods they can adopt to alter their practices and make them lawful?

[Silverfox]

So essentially,
If the agency or provider does not give prior warning to the client and does not obtain explicit consent for filming with cameras inside the incall were nudity and sexual activity is occurring, it is considered illegal.

Currently, the way these agencies and providers are using their cameras inside their incall locations violates several serious laws. 
Is there any way they could continue this practice lawfully? 
Are there any methods they can adopt to alter their practices and make them lawful?

Im. no laywer, but what from what I gather reading the relevant laws, they would need to:

-Inform the client ahead of their appointment about the presence and location of the cameras. This would be done through their advertisement or by sending a text message stating this during the booking process.

-Upon arrival at the incall, the provider who is present must inform the client about the camera's presence and identify its location. The provider should then request the client's explicit consent for the camera to be present and active during any nudity or sexual activity. The client must agree by confirming with a "Yes, I am aware and okay with it."

Even in the above is met, it would be particularly challenging for agencies, as the agency owner is likely the one who owns the camera and has access to its footage. 
Therefore, they would be the ones held liable if any of the above procedures are not followed precisely.

It will be interesting to see whether any providers or agencies with these cameras adjust their practices now that they are aware of the applicable laws. If they choose not to, they are knowingly violating multiple laws and could face significant legal consequences.