Agreed. It's not as if they named specific sites, groups, and clubs: "They were active in the Toronto fetish scene, attending events like the 2023 Rubber Nurse Gala and the 2024 All-Canada Lumberjack Off, and were frequently at The Black Hole Club, Chubb-E-Chaserz, and Tittapotamus. See photo spread of these venues and events page 3. Through 91."
The OP referred to the Skeptic article, which said none of that. They said what I quoted.
Hm. I guess you don't get it. That's okay, a lot of people don't get it.
You're welcome to explain. This is, after all, an educational discussion forum with an open mic.
When they are con artists? Any right to conceal their identities from their victims and other "associates" who deserve to know these people take advantage of others through deception, sometimes relying on concealing identities and various fraud.
Not when their crimes are accomplished by concealing their identities. If a person charged with fraud has been using aliases then those aliases, and their real identities, are absolutely part of the crime and part of the news around it. It may be the only way to expose further crimes and bring justice to the victims. You are not entitled to all your rights if you're utilizing them to victimize others. It's a social contract, which means violators do not get to enjoy all the fruits of those who abide by the terms of the contract.
They had their faces posted on social media with their alter ego identity names. They were out in the open in public, by their own permission.
You asked what rights a con artist scammer should lose. I said identity concealment rights. You're agreeing?
Maybe it did, there's no way to find out unless their concealment of identity is revealed to allow other potential victims to come forward. If you read in the paper that Miss X has been charged with embezzling all her clients' funds you might well be relieved because you have all your investments with Miss Y...except for the information tidbit "Miss X has also been operating under the alias Miss Y."
Really? I don't think it's unlikely at all. There can be quite a lot of downtime at such things.
Which would only have been known if the aliases had been revealed to them. Look, I'm a trifle kinky myself, and while I wouldn't care to have all my business exposed to the world I would totally understand, if I were to commit crimes, that my privacy was not entirely something I should expect to enjoy any more. That's how society works. You violate a social contract you should expect penalties, or at the very least the revokation of some privileges.
americanboardofsexology.org
But from what we read, while they may have gone partly for sex, it was also partly for scamming.
Where the ◊◊◊◊ are you getting "super secret spy stuff" from?
That's pure speculation. There's no evidence of that. None that I've seen, anyway.
In the UK, convicted sex offenders are place on a register, which is accessible to the public. We have a right to know if such a person is living in our neighbourhoods, or working at our local schools. This is an instance where the right to privacy for one indivudual is outweighed by the rights of the surrounding community to know of potential dangers to them.
From the article:
Perkins isn't a convicted sex offender though.
So obvious that I assume Ferland knew and didn't care ... she wanted that fake degree no matter.
Yes. I know. I pointed that out already. Those were their Twitter handles and possibly (but by no means evidenced) some kind of nickname in the club or community. Their IRL names were on the very same public Twitter posts, with their clearly recognizable unmasked faces.
Your entire premise is speculation. There were no secret names. No one outed them. They were already out and proud, big and bold with their real IDs and faces attached to their public Twitter account.
Just as a note - It isn't. "...There is no general public access to the “sex offenders register”...."
I looked at the home boy's website. It fairly screams bull ◊◊◊◊, and fairly obviously. It might just be my experience, but having "certified" in the name of the college itself is a huge red flag. Colleges tend to do the educating, and a separate board does the certifying. They are usually rolled together in the clumsiness of scams.
Since when does a con artist who is using fake identities entitled to confidentiality surrounding one of those identities?
Yes. There are circumstances where human rights are justifiably infringed. I don't believe this is one of them.
I didn't call them "secret names". You're the only person who did that, with your implication that there was some kind of cloak-and-dagger James Bond stuff going on.
The specific reason people use make pretend names doesn't interest me. I generally find it silly, so refer to it with a silly descriptor.
It makes sense to do this for sex offenders. I'm not sure it makes sense for fraudsters.
Actually, yes it is.
Glad you cleared that up, because that viewpoint wasn't at all clear from your earlier "human rights are human rights" statement.
That may be the case in America, but it's not that way in the UK, as linked to above.
What are you still confused about?
Well, we could start with why the hell we are talking about outing names and how horrific it is and how there's no evidence of these people scamming in the club when it has apparently nothing to do with anything at all in this story? You could start with post #3.
It's an aspect of the story, and in my opinion worth a bit of discussion.
Or you could just briefly summarise what you are confused about, which you just did.
Jesus christ dude, it's not an aspect of the story.