Hacker News Reader

Comment by JWLong | Hacker News Reader

Yes, they're identifying real world problems, but they're not solving it. You can't simultaneously have anonymity, while providing security for sex workers. These are both stated goals, across their various outlets.

View on HN

The anonymity is for our core team, so we can stay operational[1]. But that is very few people. Other contractors are trustless. On-ground people will be rotated often enough (and well paid to compensate for that).

Obviously actual workers can't remain anonymous when they meet users :]. But we can screen everyone involved to reduce the risk of LE infiltration. For providers, we will actually take their pictures, check ID, and make sure they actually provide service (just a 2 minute "test"): something an undercover cop will not do.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding, how do you feel we are not solving things?

1: https://medium.com/@PinkApp/pink-app-trading-latency-for-ano...

1) You seem to have gotten your legal advice from Badger, and not Saul.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2017/05/07/bill...

Forcing the narc to snort coke is not a viable means of weeding them out.

2) In places where it is illegal to buy, you have to provide anonymity for the buyers. Looks like you're already making plans to do just that. Good for you. You're now no longer capable of keeping your contractors safe.

---

My advice to you: Commit one crime at a time. Even Uber managed to do that. :P

1: I suppose it's possible that enough undercover cops are going to have sex with strangers to make a bust. I agree this does not work for clients (often male) - a cop won't mind having to touch someone for a bit. But a provider (often female), having sex with someone for a sting? I'm not sure that'll be common.

On top of that, for them to collect more evidence, they'd have to continuously engage in having sex with strangers. If they stop, they'll get us to investigate as they'd be red-flagged right away (just like in Uber, if the driver drops you off in the middle of nowhere, you're going to open a support ticket right away). All this to get a few buying prostitution charges?

2: We provide privacy, not anonymity for both parties. We will verify identities to each provider's desired level. The verification stays within Pink's platform and isn't exposed to the provider. So the client can know we're not sharing this info, and the provider knows we have checked out the client. We show a picture of the other person when they meet. If it's not the same as who we verified, they can cancel the date or request security. (We have an article that will go out today explaining our secure in-person date protocol).

You seem to have not considered rewards and informants. Law enforcement doesn't need to personally be party to a transaction to gather evidence of it.

> But we can screen everyone involved to reduce the risk of LE infiltration.

Criminal conspiracies always seem to think this, and its a belief that quite often leads to their downfall.

Because (1) law enforcement can pass screenings designed to weed them out, (2) law enforcement informants can pass screenings that law enforcement might not, and (3) law enforcement can turn people after they are screened.

Re anonymity, comparison to Silk Road etc.: do you have a dual BA in math and CS from Rice?

> make sure they actually provide service (just a 2 minute "test")

If that's implying what I think it is, that's an extraordinarily chilling thing to mention as a parenthetical.

It's not chilling, why do you say that?

As part of the onboarding process, the worker will perform sample services. We will pay them for this (along with referral fees if they were referred). Having sex with people is what a sex worker's job is. It's just that the client in this case will report to us and verify their ID.

Seems like a good way to filter out people that are not serious or have ulterior motives (such as law enforcement).

No, it doesn't, though it seems to be the standard method that people ignorant of law enforcement come up with and think they have solved the problem of keeping LE out.

For a start, if soliciting prostitution is illegal, the LE agent doesn't have to perform service, they just have to bust the “client/screener”, and turn them so that they report back properly.

You're correct, this can be subverted. Though it would not last very long. The thing many people seem to forget when talking to us is that this business is already happening. People are working off classified ad sites, like eros.com. The verification procedures are being used by workers charging from $$$ to $$$$. So while this isn't perfect, it's far better than anything existing.

And in the end, what does LE end up with by doing all this? A few individual prostitution "busts", with no real change.

turn them so that they report back properly.

But that only works if the client/screener can actually lead you anywhere.

It also works if you want to keep arresting Johns and make the service unreliable in your jurisdiction, too.

Note that a similar technique also works for criminal gangs interested in robbing Johns who want to exploit your platform for their funnel.

Theoretically you're right. In practice no jurisdictions are actually carrying out a denial of service on escorts. They could. They could buy ads and people to comply and turn over intel and on and on... yet they don't. There's a few busts here and there, mostly when they can take down a whole brother/agency/parlor. Plus low-level arrests, typically against minorities, for prostitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com