It's Stupid to Text

[GneissGuy]

Well, a local agency got busted.

Stop and think about what this means. Big brother can read all his text messages for the past X months. Then they can read the text messages of all of his customers. Then follow the trail of who that customer texted with.

Texts are considerably worse than voice calls because all texts are recorded and kept for a long time. They can go back and see the texts from before an investigation starts and court orders are issued.

Voice call audio is not routinely recorded unless an investigation is already in process and a wiretap order has been issued by a judge. Even then, voice call monitoring is a lot more work than text monitoring. Voice call numbers are usually recorded and kept.

Don't assume that something like Google Voice will protect you either. If they get a warrant, Google will give you up in a heartbeat. Google may be good about fighting illegal warrantless data requests or overly broad warrants, but they will comply with legal warrants.

Don't get too cocky about having a hobby phone, either. Location is recorded by many cell phone systems. You can also find out a lot by reading your call records and texts, especially if you use the phone for non-hobby purposes.

So, when you're happily texting your clients or a provider, just realize that Big Brother is looking over your shoulder and writing everything down.

Yes, text may be convenient, but they're a lot more risky.

You may slip through the net if you're a little fish, but you're definitely in the net.

[Passion2015]

Maybe we can send smoke signals. Text, emails, PM's and anything else is subject to be used as evidence. However, giving personal information and credit card information, is just plan stupid. Have fun and be safe

[nuglet]

Ok, and?

[Iron Butterfly]

I text more then I call or email so I don't care what big brother is doing, it's none of my business!

IB

[Little Monster]

Big brother can watch me all he wants to, and he can write whatever the hell he wants I would still much rather text. I hate talking on the phone, constantly interrupting each other, can hardly understand what they're saying therefore none of my questions get answered. If I forget something, with text at least I have it in writing.

[Toyz]

BB: Toyz u have a text here to Mary Jane Rotten crotch discussing cowgirl?

TOYZ: OH YAH...that about the football team in Dallas

BB: You also talk about "Rockin your world"?

TOYz: That? Oh we both like rock and roll. Favorite band is Ricky & the Bandles. It's a gospel group

BB: Whats this about "deep throat"?

TOYz: Deepthroat? Ah that's before your time...has to do with a political snitch back during the Nixon administration.

BB: DOUBLES?
TOYz: ♡♡♡we both love cheeseburgers♡♡♡

TOYz: you done with me? I got a BBJ scheduled
BB: a BBJ?
TOYz: Back Breaking Jog...gotta stay in shape to see Asian Layla

BB: Asian Layla?
TOYz: she's my trainer...

[illuminati]

Originally Posted by GneissGuy

Well, a local agency got busted.

Stop and think about what this means. Big brother can read all his text messages for the past X months. Then they can read the text messages of all of his customers. Then follow the trail of who that customer texted with.

Texts are considerably worse than voice calls because all texts are recorded and kept for a long time. They can go back and see the texts from before an investigation starts and court orders are issued.

Voice call audio is not routinely recorded unless an investigation is already in process and a wiretap order has been issued by a judge. Even then, voice call monitoring is a lot more work than text monitoring. Voice call numbers are usually recorded and kept.

Don't assume that something like Google Voice will protect you either. If they get a warrant, Google will give you up in a heartbeat. Google may be good about fighting illegal warrantless data requests or overly broad warrants, but they will comply with legal warrants.

Don't get too cocky about having a hobby phone, either. Location is recorded by many cell phone systems. You can also find out a lot by reading your call records and texts, especially if you use the phone for non-hobby purposes.

So, when you're happily texting your clients or a provider, just realize that Big Brother is looking over your shoulder and writing everything down.

Yes, text may be convenient, but they're a lot more risky.

You may slip through the net if you're a little fish, but you're definitely in the net.

That's a lot of work for a simple misdemeanor charge when LE can simply catch johns in the act out on Georgian Street or set up a sting off of BP. Honestly, that technique is used mostly by the feds to bust drug and human traffickers, but it isn't as reliable as good old-fashion undercover or CI investigations. Using a hobby phone, or a burner phone, can be linked to a location but at best it is as narrow as a city block. The bust in San Antonio happened because a provider snitched on the abusive pimp, and provided evidenced from multiple sources.

[michaelbolton]

...and texts are only circumstantial assuming you're not foolish enough to go ultra explicit with it...they have nothing, really...

these days without audio or video and explicit transactional conversation, they got nothing...

and texts are far weaker evidence than voicemail: PROVE i wrote the text

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by michaelbolton

...and texts are only circumstantial assuming you're not foolish enough to go ultra explicit with it...they have nothing, really...

these days without audio or video and explicit transactional conversation, they got nothing...

and texts are far weaker evidence than voicemail: PROVE i wrote the text

Everyone makes this point, and its valid.

But by the TIME you are in court & DEFENDING your texts, how much damage has already been done?

You've likely been accused of a crime...
You've likely had your family & possibly your job informed of what the charges are...

So you get off on the technicality of not being able to prove any of the accusations, isn't avoidance through smart choices a better option?

[tron]

That's why I use a burner phone, and it is off unless I am setting up an appointment.

As far as calls go, I suspect the metadata collected would show a provider's cell has a large number of very short calls, and most calls are incoming. The vast majority of outgoing calls are to numbers that placed in incoming call a fairly short time before the call was returned.

How many people would have that sort of call pattern? That would seem to imply some product or service is being sold. Combine that with it being a burner phone, and... hmmmm.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by michaelbolton

...and texts are only circumstantial assuming you're not foolish enough to go ultra explicit with it...they have nothing, really...

these days without audio or video and explicit transactional conversation, they got nothing...

and texts are far weaker evidence than voicemail: PROVE i wrote the text

They don't have to get a conviction to do a lot of harm to you. They may not even care that much about getting a conviction. TV sound bites, arrests, publicity, reputation damage, the joy of fucking up some evil whoremonger's life, etc. are all wins in their book.

Also, you have got a seriously misplaced idea of the US "justice" system if you think a judge won't assume that a text was written by you because it was on your phone, or that a jury won't accept it as proof.

Even if the texts are never introduced in court, they can help them catch you or set you up, especially if you're a provider.

[MrBangBang21]

Would changing contact numbers help?

[michaelbolton]

Absolutely. But are we not talking about texts for use as legal evidence, not loss of job or reputation?

We can digress there...know that DAs are very busy, often political, people - they know no case can rest on flimsy texts alone and pursue winnable cases.

Lost convictions waste taxpayer resources, time, and are never good politically.

NO CHANCE an everyday john, like most of us presumably are, is even CHARGED on non explicit texts.

Originally Posted by Toyz

Everyone makes this point, and its valid.

But by the TIME you are in court & DEFENDING your texts, how much damage has already been done?

You've likely been accused of a crime...
You've likely had your family & possibly your job informed of what the charges are...

So you get off on the technicality of not being able to prove any of the accusations, isn't avoidance through smart choices a better option?

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by michaelbolton

Absolutely. But are we not talking about texts for use as legal evidence, not loss of job or reputation?

We can digress there...know that DAs are very busy, often political, people - they know no case can rest on flimsy texts alone and pursue winnable cases.

Lost convictions waste taxpayer resources, time, and are never good politically.

NO CHANCE an everyday john, like most of us presumably are, is even CHARGED on non explicit texts.

Agree based on that as the ONLY piece of information...

And come on...if you lost your job, your marriage, and your reputation but you BEAT the prosecution, are you still a winner or just a vindicated loser?

Combined with Pimps who roll on you because they get a plea agreement...
Combined with Hoogars who do the same...
Combined with credit card records tied to the agency (say SGBJ)...

Now you have enough circumstantial to go after a monger on a nuisance roundup and statement attack. I'm not saying DA's would go after one individual monger...unless he was a promoter/trafficker/high volume enabler. But a GROUP of Mongers (say the combined customers of SGBJ) might be worth the roundup.

Think about Williamson county.

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by MrBangBang21

Would changing contact numbers help?

It could...but probably a bigger avoidance measure would be to not use helpers, avoid agencies, and never write reviews on agencies