ClientEye: Open to abuse and how to remove your details?

[RadioKid]

Hi,

Notice to Mods: I'm aware there is already an old thread on clientEye but it said to make a new thread if it's older than 90 days a new question.

Just to preface, aside from wasting my time on the rare Seeking Arrangement (Would Not Recommend) I've not punted for a while as I've not been in the damn country and only return sporadically. One of my old SA regulars said apparently my number is on this ClientEye App. Apparently a report was made that I "requested this Escort for Videos" or some nonesense. I've had to bring myself up to speed with ClientEye and I'm stunned how open it is to abuse with little opportunity for a client to respond or rectify it with a 3rd party Admin.

The key thing for me was the date. I wasn't even in the country for a good few months either side so I am convinced this has been done by someone with nefarious intentions. And I haven't ever asked anyone to "make me a Video" or anything related.

Here's the kicker: I tried to get to the bottom of it but was met with very unprofessional and abrupt responses from ClientEye at every oppurtunity. It was bizzare... The responses had spelling mistakes and often read like it was written by some idiot too busy doing something else. It took a while for them to explain the "removal process". It requires for you to complete a GDPR form along with a document stating your name and address ie Phone or Utility Bill..

Naturally i was weary, so i've messaged a few people on various Forums (Including here). Not a single person has successfully been able to remove their details. They'll happily keep your personal details under the pretense it's for safety reasons pertaining to any future investigations.

I have no issue with the App itself and is probably a good idea. I'm also aware only Escorts can access it once they've paid/subscribed to their advertisements. However, it got me thinking... This could easily have been a very malicious and dangerous "Report" and there would be no way for the "Punter" to know or respond.

Has anyone else had better luck with these Charlatans?

[Cheshuk]

Yeah I got a bad report there for a neg I left here. I was to identifiable as newer to ukp at the time, members warned me this sp does that.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=355831.0

I found out when I tried to book an sp and she said I had bad reviews. I was confused since my aw reviews are plentiful and good.

Just get a new number and move on, there are honest people reported on there as well as bad, so in fairness to client eye they can't distinguish.

Plus reported numbers make their thing site seem valuable to customers, also imagine if they let anyone report with no proof they're not the type integrity before profits.

It is definitely a site that's weaponised by sp's as well as useful to them.

[IndigoRocks]

It is definitely a site that's weaponised by sp's as well as useful to them.

Same can be said about UKP… blacklisted clients have used this forum against me a few times to spread miss information about me to try harm me.

Ultimately working as an SP is extremely dangerous. I’m hopeful you can all see that this platform ultimately helps us stay safe. And as with ukp reports - a single bad report will be taken with a pinch of salt by most SPs… but if you start to accumulate many bad reports that are similar it is time to do some self reflection rather than just being angry at the SP community or blaming the fact you are a member of this community.

[Doc Holliday]

Hi,

Notice to Mods: I'm aware there is already an old thread on clientEye but it said to make a new thread if it's older than 90 days a new question.

It doesn't actually say that. It is just a warning to consider starting a new thread but you can still add to it.

It is a 16 pager which covered it great detail and became very confrontational and toxic. As this already looks like that toxicity could start again, it may be better to merge with the old thread as it has pretty much all been thrashed out before.

No it is virtually impossible to get yourself removed from it.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=300677.msg3675377#msg3675377

[tynetunnel]

You’ll be using a burner number, get another and move along. Sorted 

[tynetunnel]

Same can be said about UKP… blacklisted clients have used this forum against me a few times to spread miss information about me to try harm me.

The difference is that you can be and are a member here, and have a right of reply to anything posted on this forum. Which cannot be said about CE

[IndigoRocks]

The difference is that you can be and are a member here, and have a right of reply to anything posted on this forum. Which cannot be said about CE

I agree. Non the less. It’s still a lifeline sometimes, we are women… naked, vulnerable in a room with sometimes very dangerous people- this app fundamentally can save lives…

[RedKettle]

I agree. Non the less. It’s still a lifeline sometimes, we are women… naked, vulnerable in a room with sometimes very dangerous people- this app fundamentally can save lives…

I think all reasonable punters would agree with the purpose of the app and that it is a good thing.  I guess the question is whether they can improve how they minimise abuse of it.

[MissWolf]

As has been said on the other thread many many times if you are not a verified SP and you search your number on CE you will all see a single report against the number.
Irrespective of that number being 5 years old or 2 days old.

The sp in question is wrong to have discussed the report with you and to have shown it to you because if it had been for a genuinely dangerous incident then you will just change numbers and the report becomes useless.

[IndigoRocks]

Absolutely - i’d welcome a feature that allowed more balance as it focuses entirely on the negative.

Perhaps a thumbs up or down approach to a meet would be beneficial.

If you could see a hundred SPs had a positive experience then one had a terrible experience it provides more context. This already happens to some extent with SPs taking AW feedback into consideration.

[Doc Holliday]

I guess the question is whether they can improve how they minimise abuse of it.

It would be difficult, but you would have to actually want to try and it is clear that the couple running CI have neither the time nor desire to do so. They have a strong dislike of punters.

[tynetunnel]

It would be difficult, but you would have to actually want to try and it is clear that the couple running CI have neither the time nor desire to do so. They have a strong dislike of punters.

In which case it’s worthless and all we need to do is change number every so often

[RedKettle]

In which case it’s worthless and all we need to do is change number every so often

Not really for us to say, that is like WGs saying UKP is worthless.

[MissWolf]

Absolutely - i’d welcome a feature that allowed more balance as it focuses entirely on the negative.

Perhaps a thumbs up or down approach to a meet would be beneficial.

If you could see a hundred SPs had a positive experience then one had a terrible experience it provides more context. This already happens to some extent with SPs taking AW feedback into consideration.

I agree in a way howeveri don't think positive reports would serve any purpose,  this is a safety App and I like most girls take the CE reports with a pinch of salt

I've seen guy's with 1 or 2 no show or time waster reports who were absolutely lovely but very nervous,  I just chose to speak on the phone and that came over so I gave them a chance, doesn't always work out but most times those kind of reports do.

When I get a call from a number that has upwards of 150 reports all for TW, NS, phone wanking or text pest then I pass that one by.

Dangerous reports are taken more seriously and I insist on a phone call, I had a client while I was in Oxford a few weeks ago, came up as one report, aggressive, bully put the sp in hospital,  it sounded really ott to me so I decided to take the booking after a chat on the phone, he was an absolute delight and not a hint of pushiness, I'm not saying that there wasn't an issue in that booking just that I had no problems.

What I find really unhelpful are the one word reports like wanker, idiot, stupid  or can't read, asked dumb questions,  spoke to quietly  etc

If someone is going to report there is a 180 word count, please use it to give us decent information to work with 

[Strawberry]

I agree in a way howeveri don't think positive reports would serve any purpose,  this is a safety App and I like most girls take the CE reports with a pinch of salt

I've seen guy's with 1 or 2 no show or time waster reports who were absolutely lovely but very nervous,  I just chose to speak on the phone and that came over so I gave them a chance, doesn't always work out but most times those kind of reports do.

When I get a call from a number that has upwards of 150 reports all for TW, NS, phone wanking or text pest then I pass that one by.

Dangerous reports are taken more seriously and I insist on a phone call, I had a client while I was in Oxford a few weeks ago, came up as one report, aggressive, bully put the sp in hospital,  it sounded really ott to me so I decided to take the booking after a chat on the phone, he was an absolute delight and not a hint of pushiness, I'm not saying that there wasn't an issue in that booking just that I had no problems.

What I find really unhelpful are the one word reports like wanker, idiot, stupid  or can't read, asked dumb questions,  spoke to quietly  etc

If someone is going to report there is a 180 word count, please use it to give us decent information to work with 

I agree I have a similar approach, and would like to see better use of the space. I think there is some 'bandwaggoning', the informative reports can be incredibly useful even if just backing up a gut feeling or my own experience.

[Atrueyorkie]

OP, heed the wise words of tynetunnel. Change your number and move on. All the veteran punters have an understanding of how broken that app/tool can be.

[Doc Holliday]

In which case it’s worthless and all we need to do is change number every so often

It's not worthless no. It is very popular with SPs with an increasing number of users. The main flaw is indeed punters simply changing numbers. The only way to prevent this is to try and 'keep it secret' so punters do not know about it, but that has become increasingly difficult. I gather most punters still do not know about it though?

As Miss W says all this was covered in detail in the original long thread. IMO it may struggle in the longer term as the various flaws (including those highlighted by Miss W) will begin to have more impact.

[RandomGuy99]

I suspect I have a negative report on there for writing a factual negative review on here.

It would good if the SPs who use the app didn't use it for revenge just because a customer thought they didn't do a good job for the money they were paid. All they're doing is undermining a useful app for SPs.  It would be better if they just took the feedback onboard and did the job better next time.

[RadioKid]

Thanks for the replies.

It's good to see other agree this app is open to abuse and potentially dangerous accusations, despite the good intentions. I guess my main point of contention is the shady behaviour of the ClientEye Admin who point blank refuses to remove details despite requesting additional personal details.

 The only way to remove one's details is going straight to the ICO which I'm guessing they assume nobody will want to go down that route.

[RadioKid]

It doesn't actually say that. It is just a warning to consider starting a new thread but you can still add to it.

It is a 16 pager which covered it great detail and became very confrontational and toxic. As this already looks like that toxicity could start again, it may be better to merge with the old thread as it has pretty much all been thrashed out before.

No it is virtually impossible to get yourself removed from it.

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=300677.msg3675377#msg3675377

Ah ok thanks for the heads up.

[daviemac]

The only way to remove one's details is going straight to the ICO which I'm guessing they assume nobody will want to go down that route.

This was discussed on the other thread so we are now in the situation of having information duplicated.

They are ICO compliant, if you want to know how read the other thread.