California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website

cold fjord writes "Yahoo reports, 'A California man was arrested on Tuesday on accusations he ran a 'revenge porn' website, one that featured nude pictures of women often posted by jilted or angry ex-lovers ... The San Diego arrest, the latest action by the state to crack down on such websites, comes after California Governor Jerry Brown signed a first-in-the-nation law in October specifically targeting revenge porn. The law defines revenge porn as the posting of private, explicit photos of other people on the Internet to humiliate them. But authorities did not charge 27-year-old Kevin Bollaert under that law, because it is geared to those who post the incriminating pictures and not those who run websites that feature them .... Bollaert's site, which is no longer operational, had featured over 10,000 sexually explicit photos, and he charged women up to $350 each to remove their photos, officials said. ... Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission, and under anti-extortion legislation, according to court documents. Unlike many other revenge porn websites, Bollaert's site had required users post the photo subject's full name, location, age and a link to the person's Facebook profile, the Attorney General's Office said in a statement.'"

Comments

Please don't kill me

[Major Blud]

Pics or it didn't happen.

No, really, it didn't happen if there aren't any.

*DUCKS*

Re:Please don't kill me

[Anonymous Coward]

The human race is doomed.

Re:Please don't kill me

[Anonymous Coward]

Revenge!

*SHOOTS*

It is the season, after all.

He could get out of the charge

[Russ1642]

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Valdrax]

If he's going to bargain, he should probably offer something the police doesn't already have.

Plus, unless those people are mostly in California, it's far better to go with the big fish you already have than a widely spread trove of hard to reach minnows.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[DiEx-15]

No.

One of the charges he is being slapped with is extortion. Because, according to the article, he was charging women $350 to remove the images. That is the very definition of extortion as the women had to pay to remove the images.

It is a wonder he isn't being slapped with federal charges of extortion.

The other charge is identity theft. According to the CA laws: He was posting information about these women without their explicit consent. That breaks the ID Theft law there.

That is not to say he will not be forced to turn over the information of all the idiots who posted the nudes. They may still get that info with or without his help. However, he certainly won't get a plea deal out of it if he cooperates because he is being charged with more serious, unrelated issues that the CA Anti-Revenge Porn law doesn't cover.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

More than one person pointed out they already have all of this information, but...

Depending on when the pictures were posted in regards to the law being signed, there might not be a crime by the jilted lovers.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[TheCarp]

Assuming its illegal.

There is a big difference between what they did and what he did. What they did is, generally, a huge breech of trust but.... that doesn't mean it is or even should be illegal. When it comes to personal relationships, sometimes the state really should say "My name is paul, this shit is between you all".

In the end, whether a particular upload would be an infringement or not would depend on context. I know women who have posted nude pictures of themselves or let others post pictures of them online. So you can't really just blanket assume its a violation.

How about situations where a man posts pictures online of his wife claiming they are swingers looking for more partners. We can't assume its with or without her knowledge out of hand, it could be either. she could easily turn around in a divorce and claim to have not known.

This isn't even academic, I KNOW people who have had problems like this where a divorce got messy and one side tried to use events out of context. Seriously I had a friend tell me his wife was really kinky and wanted him to have her sign a "slave contract" (not unusual in certain circles)....then a year later is telling me how she gave the contract to her lawyer to use as proof that he was really controlling.

If that was the worst of the things I have seen people in fights with their ex do, that would be one thing. One friend of mine had to go through all sorts of hell fighting his ex over custody; even having to deal with her making false abuse claims with DSS. (we are still waiting to see the hammer drop on her for that since DSS has closed the case saying there was no merit to the claims)

Relationships are messy business. Right or wrong, its usually best to stay out of them whenever possible. Unless there is "welfare of a child" involved (which admittedly can be the messiest) its best to just stay out and tell people do deal.

Yet it does seem like there should be some recourse here, maybe a civil offence for people to use after other means of dealing with it break down? I dunno, but it should be somewhat targeted to prevent abuse of the statute.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[phantomfive]

Assuming its illegal. There is a big difference between what they did and what he did. What they did is, generally, a huge breech of trust but.... that doesn't mean it is or even should be illegal. When it comes to personal relationships, sometimes the state really should say "My name is paul, this shit is between you all".

It's illegal. The summary even suggests which law was recently signed by the governor to make it illegal.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[dgatwood]

Also, if this is the person I'm thinking about, and if my memory is correct, at least one of his victims claims that he harassed and threatened her and her family, and that one of his associates cracked into women's personal computers/accounts and stole many of the photos that were posted.

So assuming this is the same person, it's a wonder he hasn't been charged with harassment, assault, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, too.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

> it's a wonder he hasn't been charged with ... violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Because not enough government secrets were revealed.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, according to the article, he was charging women $350 to remove the images. That is the very definition of extortion as the women had to pay to remove the images.

That's not the legal definition of extortion, unless displaying those images is a crime.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[girlintraining]

It is a wonder he isn't being slapped with federal charges of extortion.

Not really. California has a long and inglorious history of trying to turn itself into its own country -- second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: "This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California." They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison. As if you needed more proof California's justice system was completely off the rails than them creating laws inspired by sports games.

But, it's not a surprise the feds aren't getting involved -- they generally only become involved when the state penalty would be less than the federal penalty. In this case, it's very clearly more. The federal justice system would probably have him serving considerably less time than infinity for his crime.

As an aside, while I think what this man does was clearly anti-social and he should be punished... a prison sentence in excess of what I would get if I poured gasoline on this man and set him on fire for posting a naked picture of me on his website, I do not feel is fair. His crime was non-violent. Hate-motivated? Yes. Poor taste? Absolutely. Attempting to profit on the misery of others? Yes. But not violent. At least in my book, violence is worse than non-violence, pound for pound. And if we're going to say this guy should be punished for extortion like this, where's California when it comes to their business leaders? A lot of banks have headquarters over there...

Re:He could get out of the charge

[228e2]

Exactly.

Furthermore, how did he think this episode would end? I didnt RTFA (ofcourse, this is still Slashdot) but I wager he couldnt have made too much money extorting before the the Feds started tracking him. Stupid stupid stupid criminals.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[McGruber]

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

Read the Arrest Warrant: http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Arrest%20warrant_0.pdf

There are 31 Felony Counts listed in it. He's not going to get much of a plea deal; the police seized his computers, so they already have "all of his submission records."

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Joce640k]

He's also not guilty of "identity theft" unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

he certainly won't get a plea deal out of it if he cooperates because he is being charged with more serious, unrelated issues that the CA Anti-Revenge Porn law doesn't cover.

Doesn't that depend on whether a guilty verdict regarding this single serious charge is worth more to the DA than many guilty verdicts of less serious charges?

Re:He could get out of the charge

[TheCarp]

What? Please, how would you even know. Don't tell me you actually read the summaries and articles on slashdot. I mean seriously; who does that? :p

Re:He could get out of the charge

[tipo159]

Not really. California has a long and inglorious history of trying to turn itself into its own country -- second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: "This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California." They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison. ...

Note that both the "causes cancer" and "three strikes" were voter approved initiatives (Prop 65 (passed with 63%) and Prop 36 (passed with 61%) respectively), not something slipped through the legislature.

The will of the people should prevail until you disagree, right?

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Jane Q. Public]

"... second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: 'This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California.'"

Don't misunderstand me; I am no great fan of the State of California. But if any Federal agency deserves to get its ass kicked up to its vocal chords, it's the FDA. Although I admit that the list has now grown rather large.

They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison.

On this one, though, I would go further: it's not "controversial" at all. It's just plain bad, and everybody but politicians seem to know it.

"... a prison sentence in excess of what I would get if I poured gasoline on this man and set him on fire for posting a naked picture of me on his website, I do not feel is fair."

Again, agreed. He should definitely be dealt with harshly for his "identity theft" (if that's what you can honestly call it... I'd call it privacy violation), and extortion. But more than for murder? That's just bizarre.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Jane Q. Public]

"He's also not guilty of 'identity theft' unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data."

Yeah, that's a little weird, isn't it?

My theory is that they want to charge him for egregiously violating the privacy of those people, but because corporations have managed to weaken privacy laws, they had to dream up something else to charge him with.

But this is just more proof that we do, indeed, need strong privacy laws.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also not guilty of "identity theft" unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data.

From TFA:

Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission, and under anti-extortion legislation, according to court documents...
Unlike many other revenge porn websites, Bollaert's site had required users post the photo subject's full name, location, age and a link to the person's Facebook profile, the Attorney General's Office said in a statement..

So, according to CA law, he is facing an identity theft charge. Whether you agree with that or not is immaterial.

However considering that this guy created a one-stop shop website for sexual predators by having women's nudes, real names, location, age, and link to their Failbook page... Having a bogus credit card opened up is the least of these women's concerns.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[thaylin]

That's not the legal definition of extortion, unless displaying those images is a crime

Umm, displaying the immage does not have to be a crime in order for it to be extorton.. In fact no where in the definition does it say the threat itself has to be illegal.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

n. the act of securing money, favors, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail

Re: He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be charged with 1 count of pouring gasoline on him and setting him on fire. He's going to be charged with hundreds of counts of extortion.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we assuming his computers are not encrypted or obfuscated? It seems like if you were to run a site like that, that would be your first step, as well as hosting it outside the USA. But then, this guy isn't exactly the smartest guy around.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

Read the Arrest Warrant: http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Arrest%20warrant_0.pdf

There are 31 Felony Counts listed in it. He's not going to get much of a plea deal; the police seized his computers, so they already have "all of his submission records."

There is this thing called "encryption." js

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm somewhat surprised that none of the victims are taking him and the image submitters to civil court for copyright violation (in the case of selfies, where the subject would retain copyright of their images). Sure it'd be expensive to launch the suit, but the massive monetary judgements might have the desired affect of getting people to not act like total shitstains and post the images.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[myth24601]

If the law was recently and such posting was legal before the law then only people who posted such pictures after the law went into effect are breaking the law. (at least that is my understanding of how the law works in the US)

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Macgrrl]

As an aside, while I think what this man does was clearly anti-social and he should be punished... a prison sentence in excess of what I would get if I poured gasoline on this man and set him on fire for posting a naked picture of me on his website, I do not feel is fair.

From the article, he's being charged with 31 counts - is conspiracy, identity theft and extortion etc... 1/31st as bad as murder?

Re:He could get out of the charge

[cayenne8]

My theory is that they want to charge him for egregiously violating the privacy of those people, but because corporations have managed to weaken privacy laws, they had to dream up something else to charge him with.

Well, it's kinda like how they arrested the grown woman, that harrassed a teen her daughter knew (had a feud with, etc?), on FB, and the said teen ended up killing herself.

They arrested her and desperately wanted to charge her with something, yet there was no law against what she did. They tried stretching breaking the TOS of the FB site into the federal hacking laws and the like.

I believe it (rightly) fell through on them though.

The cops will always try to stretch laws to mean things they didn't originally intend to, in order to try to charge people with crimes that might not actually be a crime on the books.

Its why you always need to be skeptical of new laws, especially ones that are written overly broad.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[cayenne8]

But that's the thing.

The owner of the site didn't actually post the pictures, other folks did.

And, could he not argue that it wasn't extortion for the money, but only a service fee for removing content from a website?

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also not guilty of "identity theft" unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data.

You're speaking English, not Legalese. Laws define terms. If a law defines a term such that it conflicts with how people use the term, then tough shit: sucks to be people. Something which isn't identity theft, may still be "identify theft."

See also, "intent to distribute" and "circumvention" and "reasonable expectation of privacy" and a host of other technical jargon, all of which have meanings that most people would never guess.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[painandgreed]

There are 31 Felony Counts listed in it. He's not going to get much of a plea deal; the police seized his computers, so they already have "all of his submission records."

He'll probably get a plea deal. He'll plead guilty to three of those 31 and save both himself and the state a bunch of trial expenses.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[cayenne8]

Who needs the law?

Why can't people be a bit more intelligent and not let people take fucking naked pictures of them??

Geez, when did common sense fly out the window?

Re:He could get out of the charge

[girlintraining]

The will of the people should prevail until you disagree, right?

You cannot expect sound judgement from a population that averages a 5th grade reading comprehension and nearly 7% believe that lizard people secretly control the government... or aren't sure. I'm all for democracy -- when the general population is educated. California is one of the most populated states in the country, and also one of the least-educated overall. The results are, well... exactly as described.

The people are morons. Why do you think the electoral college was created to begin with? Direct democracy is usually a disaster and which is precisely why it's been so rarely used by governments past and present. These initiatives were also sponsored by the same people who put a lot of money into the campaign funds of the lawmakers they allegedly were over-ruling. So no, this isn't about your ad hominid that *I* am disagreeing... it's quite plain that California is off the rails. If you want to point fingers at why, be my guest... but the majority of the rest of the country wishes it would hurry up and slide off into the ocean. We even tried giving California back to Mexico over a hundred years ago... they wouldn't take it.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Oligonicella]

Certainly he could argue that. It's just that no one with a modicum of ethics will buy his explanation. They will be viewing what he did in the context of the site, not some abstract unrelated thought bubble.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[phantomfive]

I don't know, to be honest. But since no one reads the summaries, I just make up facts and tell people they are in the summary. No one ever doubted me until you.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

If he is facing an identity theft charge then Mark Zuckerberg needs to face one too for all of the pictures that are posted and tagged with names/locations/ages without permission on Facebook.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[HiThere]

Is he in California? It's a state law, not a federal law.

That said, I believe the laws should be such that he would be liable for identity fraud. Making public data that was revealed under the explicit understanding that it would be kept private should qualify.

I'm less certain that it should be illegal to tag pictures that are already publicly available.

IIUC, he COULD be charged with copyright infringement, as, IIUC, one's photograph has the copyright owned by oneself unless an explicit document has been signed to allow it to be shared. This, however, is rarely enforced unless one is a movie star. (There may be something in there about comercial gain. IANAL, so don't count on this being accurate.)

Re:He could get out of the charge

[HiThere]

I happen to believe that the three strikes law is stupid, unjust, unfair, and also applied in an unfair manner.

OTOH, the legislature had been doing a terrible job. Referendum can be counted upon to do a poor job, but in that case the legislature had been doing worse. And, unfortunately, it often does even worse than the referendum legislation...which is nearly uniformly bad.

In the case of the legislature, I suspect that it's due to campaign finance laws. Even the state legislature is bought and sold by corporate intereses. (I hope that smaller states have less of this problem. They OUGHT to, on theoretical grounds, but if the big government states sufficiently corrupt the standard morals, then they might not be *much* better.)

As for "this product is believed by the state of California to cause cancer", that warning is quite reasonable. If you disagree with the warning, you should be free to ignore it, but not to expose people to it without warning them. (Again, this was referendum legislation, so it was written by *believers*, or it would never have gotten passed. And this means that there will be lots of bad parts to it. But the legislation had refused to act.)

I really despise laws passed by referendum. They are always poorly written, often overbroad, and usually written by "true believers". The problem is that the legislature tends to ignore the concerns of the populace, so what alternative is there?
(FWIW, I think legislation passed by referendum should have the same status as an ordinary law unless it gets a 2/3 vote of the populace. That way bugs could be fixed as easily as in normal laws. I.e., not very easily, but possible. Unfortunately, the referendum was designed as a modification of the state constitution. Poor design decision. And extremely difficult to revise.)

Re:He could get out of the charge

[HiThere]

The law has just been passed. Ex post facto punishment is forbidden. So those who previously posted "revenge porn" could not be convicted under it.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Capt.Albatross]

He's also not guilty of "identity theft" unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data.

That's arguable, but it doesn't matter, anyway. What matters is the definition, in the relevant legislation, of whatever crimes he is alleged to have committed.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[immaterial]

The copyright of a photo is owned by the person who creates the photo, not by the person in it. That said, your vague recollection was correct in so far as a photographer cannot sell/use the photo for commercial purposes without a model release.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Khashishi]

Isn't there pretty much always a plea deal? Plead guilty or face a maximum sentence of 114 years...

Re:He could get out of the charge

[mattack2]

They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison.

Yeah, that's at least one too many strikes, for many crimes at least.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[mattack2]

As for "this product is believed by the state of California to cause cancer", that warning is quite reasonable.

Though it has become a "boy who cried wolf" situation. That and similar warnings are basically EVERYWHERE, including on the entrance to my workplace.

You could argue that that would make people go "oh crap, we need to stop using this".. But nope, not even the hippie organic granola crowd is doing that. (I'm not saying *I* am either..)

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Eskarel]

There are two pieces to the level of punishment a person receives, severity and the number of offenses.

In this case even if you believe what he did was minor, he's done it a crap load of times. If I punch someone in the face I should obviously get a lesser degree of punishment than if I murder someone, but what if I punch 10 people in the face, 100, 1000? If you gave this guy a day for every image on his site it adds up to over 27 years.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[mjwx]

Warning:

This post is known to contain potentially unsafe levels of awesome by the State of California

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

This is the sad part of the "justice" system, it's to bad you can't bluff him on a deal to give up everyone involved, then rebut the deal.

You have to ask yourself is it worth wasting tax payers money to imprison this/these ass/es? I think maybe going one step further and adding an amendment to the law that would require them to register into a national sex offender database would get to point across. On top of heavy fines the must make payments on. I think the sex offender would be appropriate for this type of behavior, if your going to act like an idiot then you should be brought to everyone's attention.

Maybe even get the CIA or FBI, maybe the military to strip them down and humiliate them, then post the pictures all over the internet with all there known information.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[nurb432]

When i first heard about this i cried 'foul' and what he was doing is not a crime ( uncool perhaps ) as both parties retain copyright ownership of the video, as long as it was consensual by both parties.

However, after having time to read the details, its clear he was setting himself up for an extortion racket. Which is not legal, not morally right, and he should go to jail for it.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

I might suggest medication to combat your illusions of grandeur and superiority complex.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes also punishable? In that case, the submitters may be part of a conspiracy.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how posting pictures that probably show just one person, who is easily identifiable in the picture, including identifying information of that person, of a person that is of no interest whatsoever to the public can be legal without a model's release.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Cederic]

This is the sad part of the "justice" system, it's to bad you can't bluff him on a deal to give up everyone involved, then rebut the deal.

No, the bad part about the justice system is that they bluff him on getting the maximum penalty for all 31 charges, to be served sequentially, so that he'll admit guilt to 2-3 of them and assure the prosecutor a success.

Whether he's guilty or not doesn't come into it, the entire system appears to be geared towards assuring re-election of the attorney general.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[skinfaxi]

Some pictures were taken surreptitiously. Some were not real photos at all, but were composites of a porn performer with a revenge victim's head photoshopped on. And it's not still very fair to blame the victim for having their pics stolen if the photos were real and consensually created. Maybe guys should stop asking for nude pics and women should be refuse to make them. You never want to think your lover would betray you but obviously it does happen.

Re:He could get out of the charge

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook's headquarters is in Menlo Park and Zuckerberg lives in Palo Alto, so yes, absolutely.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

So he wasn't arrested for running the website at all. He was arrested for blackmail. That headline isn't just misleading, it's factually incorrect. He was arrested because of it, but not for it.

Re:So...

[bigwheel]

You would think so.

From TFA: " In all, Bollaert faces 31 felony counts of conspiracy, identity theft and extortion"

Re:So...

[Valdrax]

He was arrested because of it, but not for it.

The title is "California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website." What is the meaningful semantic distinction that makes the use of "for it" improper here? He was arrested for activities core to the running of the site: privacy violations (the images hosted on the site) and blackmail (a major revenue source for the site). Just because he wasn't arrested for using the site doesn't mean that we wasn't arrested for running the site.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

As even the summary explains, just hosting the images isn't illegal. However he extorted people on the side which I believe wasn't advertised on the website itself.

If he just ran the website and took down images as people complained, that would have been a different story.

Re:So...

[AK Marc]

Just hosting a revenge porn site is legal. California even said as much. His actions toward the people in the images is what's gotten him in trouble. He blackmailed them, and improperly posted personal information about them, in some cases leading to them being identified and harrassed by others who saw the images. If he'd done nothing but host a site that held revenge porn images, and encouraged others to upload them, he wouldn't have been arrested (At least not for any of the charges he was charged with). So running a "revenge porn" site was irrelevant to the issue here.

Scumbag

[Anonymous Coward]

Scumbag

Quick...

[JavaLord]

. Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission

Quick, sue the NSA.

Re:Quick...

[i kan reed]

You know, back in the Bush administration, before Snowden released documents proving they were doing it, the ESA and ACLU did just that, and the Supreme court said "Fuck off, you can't prove anything, so we won't let you get evidence that would help."

I'm pretty sure there's another lawsuit now, but it hasn't gotten that high.

Re:Quick...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what the NSA did, and US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones. Also, if the NSA is operating within boundaries set by other laws like the PATRIOT Act, which they were, then they're in the clear.

Blame the law and the politicians for poor oversight, the NSA is just a bureaucracy told to go do something without sufficient guidelines and oversight.

Re:Quick...

[celle]

" Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission "

      In other words, he's been charged with doing what every person, business, and the government itself does in the US/world. This is part of the lawmakers passing meaningless and opportunistic laws just to do so. Either enforce it on everybody and face the consequences or repeal it. Anything else is just government abuse and prosecutorial misconduct.

Re:Quick...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather that assuming everyone else knows what you're refering to; care to suggest just how everyone in the world would be found guilty under this law?

Re:Quick...

[ganjadude]

Interesting. So if I do a search on myself in google and find personal information does that mean I can sue?

Re:Quick...

[beatle42]

You'd probably need to review the TOS and EULAs you agreed to along the way. It's fairly likely that we've all given permission to use our personal information in exchange for using services like Google or Yahoo etc. If we gave them permission then they haven't done anything without our permission and thus haven't broken then law, right?

Re:Quick...

[bill_mcgonigle]

US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones

You've got that backwards - protections from the government's actions apply to all people. Rules that the government makes within those boundaries only apply to citizens.

See the Declaration of Independence if you have a question about the conscience of the Constitution.

Re:Quick...

[bill_mcgonigle]

heard earlier today: "If knowledge is power, then privacy is freedom." Think about that in context of the NSA.

Re:Quick...

[Valdrax]

That's not what the NSA did, and US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones. Also, if the NSA is operating within boundaries set by other laws like the PATRIOT Act, which they were, then they're in the clear.

Blame the law and the politicians for poor oversight, the NSA is just a bureaucracy told to go do something without sufficient guidelines and oversight.

Several problems with this.

First, the NSA has swept up plenty of information about US citizens, e.g. in requesting phone records in bulk, and we only have their word that they're only interested in foreigners. Not that that legally justifies sweeping up people you're not allowed to look at without a warrant.

Second, James Sensenbrenner, the Republican main sponsor of the PATRIOT Act, has said that the NSA is far overreaching its authorization under the Act. It's very possible that the agency's interpretation of the Act is far out of bounds with its congressional intent (or possibly even its language).

Third, even if they did not go beyond the bounds of the law, the question of whether the law itself is constitutional isn't a settled one. Many of the provisions have been untested due to difficulty in claiming standing due to government secrecy about what they do with the information they've collected.

Fourth, the question of legality isn't the only one. There's also the question of morality, of hypocrisy, and of the dangers inherent to information asymmetry between the government and the people.

Fifth, absolving the actions of an agency (or any individual) who uses a lack of clear guidelines as an excuse to go as far into bad behavior as they think they can get away with is a terrible idea. It's the same sort of mentality that says, "Well, it wasn't illegal back then to rape your wife, so how could it have been wrong?" You wouldn't raise kids that way, and you shouldn't expect your government to behave responsibly if they know they can get away with anything as long as it hasn't been written down that they shouldn't.

Re:Quick...

[sjames]

I believe he is referring to the trade in customer data.

Re:Quick...

[botnick]

That's not what the NSA did, and US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones. Also, if the NSA is operating within boundaries set by other laws like the PATRIOT Act, which they were, then they're in the clear.

Blame the law and the politicians for poor oversight, the NSA is just a bureaucracy told to go do something without sufficient guidelines and oversight.

Yeah, it's asymmetric to say the least; NSA hacks foreigners by the millions and should one poor bastard get through to pentagon then it's suddenly a hanging crime.

Re:Quick...

[Ozymandias_KoK]

No, rules apply (theoretically, of course!) to everyone in that particular jurisdiction, be they citizens, residents, or just passin' through. Diplomats are a noted official exception.

Re:Quick...

[HiThere]

Not just foreigners.

P.S.: The constitution talks in most places about people, not about citizens, or people who live in some particular geographic area. And my reading is that the NSA has clearly, and with malice aforethought, violated the constitution wholesale.

Open Book

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your life in this day and age. Anyone who doesn't assume that everything s/he says or does will somehow end up online, especially if there is visual evidence of the deed, is just an idiot. Maybe sites like this serve a purpose in society by taxing the stupid into learning a life lesson or twelve.

Re:Open Book

[CanHasDIY]

Anyone who doesn't assume that everything s/he says or does will somehow end up online, especially if there is visual evidence of the deed, is just an idiot.

You're an idiot.

Lots of things people do and/or say, even if there's visual evidence, does not ever end up online.

For example, I did something yesterday, and created visual evidence by making a video recording.Yet you don't know about it, and it never ended up online; won't, either, as I have the only recording in existence and no plans to share it with the world.

Maybe sites like this serve a purpose in society by taxing the stupid into learning a life lesson or twelve.

Right, and maybe all those people Saddam Hussein tortured to death really deserved it.

Idiot.

Re:Open Book

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

You should probably attempt to read above a third-grade level before you start tossing around insults, poppet. Allow me to demonstrate:

Anyone who doesn't assume that everything s/he says or does will somehow end up online, especially if there is visual evidence of the deed, is just an idiot.

Lots of things people do and/or say, even if there's visual evidence, does not ever end up online.

I never implied that it would. The statement was that one should assume everything will end up online. There's a distinct difference. For example: you should assume that the currently green traffic light you're approaching with cross-traffic waiting will change before you cross the intersection, and take appropriate action; that doesn't mean it will change. Point being, if you assume the undesirable outcome, it may prevent you from doing something stupendously moronic -- like running a red-light or taking nude pictures of yourself and sending them to your boyfriend.

For example, I did something yesterday, and created visual evidence by making a video recording.Yet you don't know about it, and it never ended up online; won't, either, as I have the only recording in existence and no plans to share it with the world.

That's very nice for you. Why did you record it if you don't intend to display that recording to anyone? Where did you store this your-eyes-only recording? I hope it's not on a phone, which can be stolen, or a computer, which can be hacked.

Maybe sites like this serve a purpose in society by taxing the stupid into learning a life lesson or twelve.

Right, and maybe all those people Saddam Hussein tortured to death really deserved it.

Right... bilking a moron who believes that deleting a few kilobytes of data from one fraudster's server amounts to erasing that data from the internet out of a couple hundred bucks is tantamount to zealous dictator murdering several thousand political dissidents. Perhaps your issue is less about reading comprehension and more about being batshit fucking insane.

Idiot.

Indeed.

Re:Open Book

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, I did something yesterday, and created visual evidence by making a video recording.Yet you don't know about it, and it never ended up online; won't, either, as I have the only recording in existence and no plans to share it with the world.

I'm pretty sure the women didn't intend to share those pictures with the world either. It isn't even a given that they knowingly shared them with the person who posted them.

Re:Open Book

[sjames]

I guess you also believe rape victims were asking for it?

Re:Open Book

[Anonymous Coward]

...as I have the only recording in existence...

Don't worry, we already have a copy in our Utah datacenter.

Sincerely,

The NSA

Re:Open Book

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that's what he said, then you're too stupid for any explanation to make a difference.

Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Huntr]

Charging ppl $350 a pop to remove their photos for which they did not give permission to post? Yeah, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging ppl $350 a pop to remove their photos for which they did not give permission to post? Yeah, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

"Do not collect $350", surely?

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[LurkerXXX]

Which is slightly ironic, because there are folks who do exactly the same thing with photos from bookings when you are arrested. He may end up on the page of one of those blackmailers. Are the cops going after them as well?

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what game you're playing but it ain't Monopoly.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not kinda sorta , it is extortion.

And that's all he should be charged with. This bullshit identity theft charge really erodes our freedom of speech. You can't extort someone but you should be able to write/say what you want within the bounds of libel and slander without a prosecutor twisting identity theft or terrorism laws to suit their political convenience.

Prosecutorial behavior like that has a chilling effect on speech.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's a pretty scummy practice.
There are similar sites that do this with mugshot photos. Since American law says mugshot photos and arrest records are essentially public domain, there are sites that siphon them up and post them online.. Then charge people to get the removed.

Pretty scummy, but technically legal. Your reputation can be harmed without being convicted or even charged for a crime. If a prospective employers googles your name and you show up on one of these sites guess where your application is going. (And yes, they do this even if it's technically illegal. There's zero repercussion so they do it anyway)

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Vanderhoth]

It's still Monopoly, just with inflation factored in.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[edibobb]

and...
Charge people $5,000 a pop to avoid RIAA copyright lawsuits? Profit.
Charge people $3,000 a pop to avoid vague patent lawsuits? Profit.
This right and wrong stuff gets so confusing!

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Gryle]

To my understanding, booking photos are technically public record except in cases where the records have been sealed by the courts. Private Citizen A posting a audio/visual recording of Private Citizen B without B's permission is a legally-distinct matter.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the bookings are public information. A person "gives consent" when arrested. I don't agree with this notion, nor with the what the sites do, but they don't operate in same area of shadiness as this case.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly the same thing, since the mug shots are public information that can be obtained directly from the police department. Republishing information that is already public by law is doesn't seem as sleazy as publishing someone's private photos without their permission.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[TheCarp]

Actually I question if either is really blackmail, but if one is, then both seem to be to me.

Here is why: blackmail is generally about revealing information that is secret. As was pointed out in an objection to the concept by some libertarians: it is legal to gossip or to threaten to release secrets; it is only illegal to offer to not release them for some benefit.

The thing is, this is not about release of public info, this is about continued availability. The info was already made public, this is "pay me and I will hide it"; which isn't really blackmail is it? However the point is: Its blackmail even if the threatened action is otherwise legal (though this likely varies from place to place, wikipedia has some good examples of how it differs).

So.... it seems to me if "pay me and I hide this embarrassing info, which is already published now" is blackmail, then it is blackmail whether its nude photos or public court documents.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Back before the Euro, in the German Monopoly you got 4000 DM, so it seemed strange to me that you would get only 200$. A quick web search reveals that apparently now it's only 200 EUR. Even Monopoly gets less lucrative with the Euro! (But it's still more than 200$ ;-))

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where that unfortunately seems to fall down is that public court records are otherwise public. They are not a secret.

Private photos are otherwise private and considered to be a secret. If said photos are published far and wide then perhaps there is a claim to be made that they are not secret, but the claim that they are not secret because one site published them is a bit of circular reasoning.

I.e. The argument that it is illegal to publish secret information, but once published the information is no longer secret by definition, so you can never be guilty of publishing secret information, does not quite follow.

Not a fan of mugshot sites, mainly because only an absolute douchebag would ever run something like that.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

and this is why I did not create this exact business 15 years ago. I got the idea from a friend who like to share pics of his ex's.

It is wrong on so many levels. But apparently borderline legal. In fact mostly legal until fairly recently (about 2011). There were no specific statues against it. Ones you could interpret to mean that (aka the spirit of the law) but none explicitly saying it was bad. In fact no one was charged until fairly recently.

I found better uses of my time and I have something called a soul.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[swb]

Until very recently, though, booking photos were funcitonally private. It took digital photography combined with modern record keeping systems for them to be widely available, and even now you can't simply browse the police department's web site (at least here in Minneapolis) and grab the photos. You have to go down to the department to get a copy, and it wouldn't surprise me if the copy you get is a printout.

So even though booking photos have a legal status as public informaiton, the idea of running a web site where you "publish" them and then offer to remove them for a fee seems to be not much different than "revenge porn" at least in terms of the extortion component.

Both kinds of sites are making private photos which could be damaging to the people in question. I'd even wager that booking photo sites do more real harm in some ways than revenge porn does.

The legal bar for being arrested is pretty low and lots of people are arrested and quickly released without ever having been charged with a crime, let alone tried and found guilty of one. Yet the mere fact that you were arrested can be used against you to prevent you from getting a job or housing by people who don't know or care to differentiate between arrest and conviction, or simply believe that anyone who was arrested must be guilty of something. It's trivial to think of situations where you could be arrested just because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because of mistaken identity with someone who is a criminal.

Some revenge porn may be pictures of people indulging in sexual behavior which could negatively influence their reputatons, but I would bet a lot of it are merely nude photos many of which could have been taken surrepitiously. Even the most petty HR department isn't going to deny a job to a woman just because a photo exists that documents the fact that she does indeed have breasts and a vagina. The harm that results in these photos being public is purely psychological, except where the photos reveal unusual sexual taste or the site further crosses the line by trying to link the photo to pesonal information like addresses and phone numbers.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"You stole something and got successfully prosecuted when you were young. Pay me or I'll march around with this sign describing it, in front of your work or any restaurants you go to for business."

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not charged with blackmail, he's charged with extortion. Minor difference, perhaps, but significant here. He's not demanding payment to not do something, he's demanding payment to stop doing something. Given that the something he's doing is unethical and damaging at best and criminal at worst (we'll see if he's convicted), I'd say it qualifies as extortion...

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[EvilSS]

Where that unfortunately seems to fall down is that public court records are otherwise public. They are not a secret.

Private photos are otherwise private and considered to be a secret. If said photos are published far and wide then perhaps there is a claim to be made that they are not secret, but the claim that they are not secret because one site published them is a bit of circular reasoning.

I.e. The argument that it is illegal to publish secret information, but once published the information is no longer secret by definition, so you can never be guilty of publishing secret information, does not quite follow.

Not a fan of mugshot sites, mainly because only an absolute douchebag would ever run something like that.

That's not true, at least under US law. The difference between the mugshot sites and this one is one of copyright. For mugshots, being part of the public record, the copyright falls into the public domain. For intimate images of your significant other, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Unless the photo was taken without concent (i.e. hidden bathroom camera, etc) the subject of the photo has very little recourse in how they are actually used. Basically anything short of advertising (i.e. implying an endorsement of a product or service) is fair game. I only need your consent to take the photos, and even that's a tricky issue based on if you have a resonable expectation of privacy or not at the time the photos are taken. What happens to them after that is almost completely up to the photographer.

To that end, I don't see any difference between the two. They are both equally morally bankrupt acts but if one is legal, then the other is. Now we don't know all the details from the summary (maybe he went above and beyond in the way he operated vs the mugshot sites) but on the surface they don't seem to differ.

That said, I think we need to carefully change the laws to prevent this sort of abuse. I thnk the new California law is a step in the right direction (if it can stand up to legal challenge that is)

Legal or no, it's very wrong.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[sjames]

Actually, once they cross the line by demanding payment to remove a photo, they are also committing extortion.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[TheCarp]

sure but that isn't the argument I made. I was pointing out that depending on the definition of blackmail locally, it may or may not require that the threatened action be otherwise illegal. That is, it may be legal to release the secret, in and of itself, but not to demand payment to not do it.

Of course, in this case, it seems it may have been illegal to release.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think it really matter who owns the copyright here.

charging to take down the booking photos is still extortion similar to charging women to take down photos of themselves in the revenge porn sites.

in both cases you are charging money to remove something that could be damaging to the reputations of the person. which very well seems to fit with extortion.

now the booking photos may very well be public record. and the site may have the right to display the photo. but if you start charging money to remove it, you are crossing a line because you are now trying to make a profit by offering to remove embarrassing material of them. that is pretty much the definition of extortion.

now if you just had a site that displayed public information such as booking photos, and possibly didn't even have a way to remove the photo at all, then there isn't a problem. you aren't trying to extort money out of anyone, you are just displaying public records

of course IANAL, but i like to practice with my GF

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

sharing the booking photos becomes sleazy when you start charging money to take them down.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[HiThere]

I don't think that's the distinction. If I charge you money not to burn down your resturant, I'm not stopping doing something, I'm continuing to not do something. But it's still extortion.

IIUC, blackmail is the threat to do something to you unless you do something. But that shades into extortion without a dividing line that I can see. Perhaps they are two terms for the same thing. (I.e., perhaps extortion is the legal term, and blackmail is the journalistic term. That could produce the shades of difference in meaning that I feel as being present.)

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[whoever57]

To my understanding, booking photos are technically public record except in cases where the records have been sealed by the courts

And people from most, if not all, western countries other than the USA are horrified at the way booking photos are released and the other assault on justice: the "perp walk".

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[Gryle]

Be that as it may, I'm talking strictly about the legal terms, not about moral or ethical concerns.

Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe...

[TheCarp]

From what I can see the problem here is we want to talk about "the law" when no such thing exists. There are many laws in many places; and I think we are all (or most) tripping over that fact when we try to discuss it.

For example.... Wikipedia reports that US Federal law defines blackmail only in terms of information about crime. That is, its only blackmail if the information that is threatened to reveal or keep hidden is information about a criminal act. So this....is not blackmail.

However, Brittish law, makes no such distinction and defines such a demand as blackmail any time that the person making the demand has reason to expect he has a right to benefit. So, if I find out you are bisexual, and demand you pay me to keep that hidden, that is blackmail, even though it wouldn't be under US federal law....

Then there are 50 states, each of which likely have their own, independently written and approved, definitions. What is it for California? Well Blackmail and Extortion are covered under one statute (no I am still not a lawyer, I just looked it up): http://www.shouselaw.com/extortion.html

A quick skim shows this "Expose a secret involving him/her or a family member, or connect any of them with some kind of crime, disgrace, or scandal;" under "extortion by threat of force".

Notice it is "expose a secret...OR connect any of them with some kind of crime". So it looks to me like my assessment stays the same, the mug shots might actually be illegal.

What was this guy thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell was this guy thinking? His entire business model is based on extortion and it's all freely available to see on the web. At least when the mob tries to shake down a store or throws bricks through the window they don't tweet about it. I can't even begin to understand this guy's logic; he was just begging to get caught.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone how mugshot websites are able to get away with it.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[kroby]

How is this any different than a mugshot site? IANAL, but I believe the license of the photograph is owned by the photographer and the subject has very little rights to the photo.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[CanHasDIY]

Someone how mugshot websites are able to get away with it.

What mugshot website lets/makes people pay to remove their pictures?

The only one I know of is the one my county runs, and they don't accept bribes.

Well, not for taking your picture off the website, anyway.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[91degrees]

It does seem extremely naive. I'd have thought he'd have the sense to consider that this sounds legally dubious so perhaps it would make sense to get a legal opinion.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[91degrees]

He's probably in the clear over copyright.

The problem is that it becomes a clear case of blackmail when he demands money to remove the information.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[SirGarlon]

If TFS is correct, then the "identity theft" and anti-blackmail statutes would apply to a mugshot site as well -- if anyone wanted to prosecute them. But, increasingly, criminal law is applied selectively and rather capriciously. I would not expect the legislature or law enforcement to take action that could be construed as affirming the presumption of innocence or the rights of the accused.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[tylikcat]

I am also NAL, but ownership of pictures is a little more involved than that, I'm pretty sure. Mugshots are already public, hence the mugshot photo sites remaining up. Ownership of pictures depends on the history of the picture. If you take, say, a dick shot of yourself, and send it to your girlfriend, she now legally owns the picture. At least in many states. Which is why the revenge porn laws, aimed at the people posting the photos, were passed, because otherwise posting pictures of your ex that you have legal ownership of is not against the law.

If, for instance, you take a topless photo of yourself, store it on your own computer, which is then hacked into, that's already illegal because of the hacking.

And apparently a lot of the pictures on these sites have been obtained through email hacking, and are therefore not revenge porn as such.

(On the Media covered this all in last week's show, and has an update on their site: http://www.onthemedia.org/

Oh, and as a side issue, on the media has decided to become a civil liberties clearing house, and currently has a little war on with DHS. Worth following.)

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true, or at least it's not legally clear. The photo itself is made by a government agency which automatically makes it public domain, however the subject is a private citizen so it runs afoul of privacy laws which can vary from state to state.

This is a bit different though, as it appears the pictures are made by a private person, not a government agency, so the ownership of the photo is retained by the individual who took the shot. Which begs an interesting IP question; if it's a nude shot of a woman taken by her boyfriend, does he own the copyright of the picture, and is therefore legally allowed to publish it if he chooses to do so?

Regardless though, that's not this guy's deal. The photos were posted and he charged women money to have them taken down; that's extortion laws, not public domain or IP laws. Mug shot websites can post in the public domain and likely the subject would have to go to court to get it removed and challenge the whole privacy/public domain law conflict.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[AK Marc]

There are lots of them out there. I had a speeding ticket once. So there is a site that lists me as a criminal. It shows up near the top of the list in Google (despite nobody on the planet linking to that page, and no hits on it as far as I can tell). So they SEO the hell out of it to try to smear people's name. But I "could" pay them to take down the page. I'd link to it, but it identifies me more that I like. The "charge" was dismissed, but the ticket still shows up as being given, my two court dates, and the discharge, identifying me as a criminal. I'm not paying them to take down information on a 20 year old speeding ticket (from Texas, where speeding tickets at the time were crimes, misdemeanors, no points, but an actual you-get-a-jury-if-you-want crime). But they are out there.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[AK Marc]

Oh, so then why do I get my nude subjects to bother signing a "model release"?

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[taustin]

That's not true, or at least it's not legally clear. The photo itself is made by a government agency which automatically makes it public domain, however the subject is a private citizen so it runs afoul of privacy laws which can vary from state to state.

That the person has been charged with a crime is newsworthy in and of itself. That brings the first amendment in to play. To say the web sites cannot post the photos is, legally, the same as saying the New York Times cannot publish the name of the defendant.

This is a bit different though, as it appears the pictures are made by a private person, not a government agency, so the ownership of the photo is retained by the individual who took the shot. Which begs an interesting IP question; if it's a nude shot of a woman taken by her boyfriend, does he own the copyright of the picture, and is therefore legally allowed to publish it if he chooses to do so?

The copyright goes to the person who made the photograph. There are no copyright issues there. There are privacy issues, and right to commercially exploit one's own image issues, both of which are pretty strongly protected in many states.

Aside from criminal issues, as in this case.

Regardless though, that's not this guy's deal. The photos were posted and he charged women money to have them taken down; that's extortion laws, not public domain or IP laws. Mug shot websites can post in the public domain and likely the subject would have to go to court to get it removed and challenge the whole privacy/public domain law conflict.

IP laws are not in play in any way. The difference between mug shot sites and this is that mug shots are part of a criminal arrest, which is a public event and inherently newsworthy. Posing in (or out of) a French maid's costume in one's own bedroom is neither public nor newsworthy. That's why this guy can be arrested for posting these photos and demanding money for taking them down, and a mug shot site (or the New York Times) can't be arrested for posting a mug shot photo and demanding money to take it down (if they were to do so).

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[CanHasDIY]

Wow, I'd be surprised if any "business" like that hasn't been sued into oblivion for defamation.

Posting a factual public record is one thing; using it as a means of extortion is another all-together. How do they get away with this stuff?

Don't suppose you've tried issuing a DMCA takedown notice in regards to their unlicensed use of your image?

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[JWSmythe]

I've found that almost every county in the US I've checked, court records (sometimes including traffic citations) are available online to the general public by the court.

I went looking for information for someone I knew. I was able to pull up records on her in 3 states, including a speeding ticket and a ticket for a burned out taillight.

The problem is, the citations and arrests are easy to find. Digging through the court records to find the final disposition of the case is frequently difficult or impossible. For example, I could find that you were arrested for say possession of drug paraphernalia. The arrest record is usually a booking photo, list of charges, and some personal information. It doesn't say that the "paraphernalia" was actually a cigarette lighter and sandwich bag (with no drugs or residue), and that the charges were dropped.

Despite remaining innocent until proven guilty, a charge or arrest is a conviction in too many people's minds. They believe "If you were arrested, you must have been doing something wrong".

IMHO, court records without convictions, or even with convictions and time served, are far worse than a picture posted by an ex. All the later shows is, ya, you did have intimate relations with someone in the past. By the time you're 20-something, we've all had intimate relations.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[dryeo]

That the person has been charged with a crime is newsworthy in and of itself. That brings the first amendment in to play.

At least in my country, the right to fundamental justice can trump the freedom of expression (including freedom of the press) right. You just have to convince a judge that publishing certain information can jeopardize your right to a fair trial, eg tainting a jury. Of course the prosecution and other interested parties such as the newspapers lawyers can argue the opposite and after the trial they're usually free to publish, especially in the case of a conviction.

To say the web sites cannot post the photos is, legally, the same as saying the New York Times cannot publish the name of the defendant.

There are probably times when the New York Times can't publish the name of the defendant such as in the case of minors.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[AK Marc]

I wasn't arrested for a traffic ticket, so my image wasn't included, but my name and other personal information is associated with a crime.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[CanHasDIY]

I still think you should send them a DMCA letter.

You also might want to check with the TX court system to see if your ticket is even still on their books; there's a fair chance it's been expunged from your record, which would mean that the website is not only defaming your character, they're using libel to do it.

Worst case scenario, they ignore you. Best case, you end up turning the tables and force them to pay you for removing the info. And probably your lawyer, too.

Re:What was this guy thinking?

[AK Marc]

I'll try that. I forgot where it was, and now, when I search my name, I don't see it anymore. It used to be on the first page. It isn't anymore. As long as it's inconvenient for others to find, that's ok with me. I just don't like the idea of a prospetive employer finding bad stuff so easily.

For a good time

[fermento]

Does this mean that I write on the bathroom stall "For a good time call Jenny, 867-5309", along with crudely drawn genitalia, that I now can be prosecuted for identity theft?

Re:For a good time

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you include her last name and then promptly go to turn yourself in or attach your drivers license to said graffiti. Sure.

Mostly I imagine you would get prosecuted for vandalism which isn't legal to begin with.

Re:For a good time

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends where you are. Here a phone number is not considered to be personal information - however that might not be the case if it's an unlisted number. If Jennny is actually called or sees what you drew, sexual harassment, bullying and defamation legislation may apply.

Re:For a good time

[tylikcat]

And now I'm ear-wormed.

Re:For a good time

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the RIAA will come down on you for copyright infringement over the lyrics. Much worse than being prosecuted for identity theft.

Re:For a good time

[Bucc5062]

Jenny Jenny, who can I turn too....sigh....same.

I'll break down and just listen to it for real to get it over with otherwise my brain wont move on....

Damn you fermento, damn you to Rick Roll Hell.

Extortion then?

[gstoddart]

Bollaert's site, which is no longer operational, had featured over 10,000 sexually explicit photos, and he charged women up to $350 each to remove their photos, officials said

So basically he was running an extortion racket?

At the end of the day, you're posting intimate pictures of someone without their permission and without a model release, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for this guy. If the rest of the porn industry needs to keep model releases and the like on file, why wouldn't he?

Re:Extortion then?

[Demonantis]

There is child porn laws too for ensuring all the models are over 18. I think he would have fouled this one as well. A checkbox in the submission process doesn't cut it.

YRO

[Anonymous Coward]

This is textbook blackmail and extortion, and has nothing to do with technology whatsoever.

Re:YRO

[mjwalshe]

But this form of extortion would not be practicable without the technology involved.

Is Anonymous Access to TOR Attainable?

[Anonymous Coward]

7 December 2013

http://cryptome.org/2013/12/tor-anon-access.htm

"I was thinking about whether anonymous access to the first server, however desirable, might or might not be attainable."

In dayes of olde. . . .

[Salgak1]

. . . .the older brothers and fathers of the young ladies "exposed" on the website would stop by and have a "chat" with the guy. The site would then go offline very soon thereafter. . . either because he was sufficiently scared, or he was laid up in the hospital, and couldn't pay the hosting bill. . .

Re:In dayes of olde. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the same days during which the father and/or brother would beat the woman with a stick no larger than the size of his thumb for having taken or allowed such unwholesome pictures of herself. Progress is grand: it's no longer acceptable to beat your wife, daughter, or sister to keep her in line, nor is it okay to cripple or kill strangers on a whim. Join us here in the future, wouldn't you?

Re:In dayes of olde. . . .

[jythie]

Yeah... the reason behind that is back in those days such things were considered a crime against the fathers/brothers, not the young lady.

Re:In dayes of olde. . . .

[taustin]

And then it would turn out the sister/daughter voluntarily posed for the pictures, was paid as a professional model, and signed a release. But claimed it was something else when her brother/father turned out to subscribe to the site and found the pics.

Then, the young lady, and the brother/father would all go to prison, and everything they own auctioned off and the money given to their victim.

There's a reason civilized people prefer a rule of law to blood feud justice.

Re:In dayes of olde. . . .

[pr0fessor]

Not really days of old... I imagine it's not the guy running the site but the ex boyfriends that are getting the riverside chats about carpet swatches.

Re:In dayes of olde. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then, the young lady, and the brother/father would all go to prison.."

Only if they were in the minority of idiots who get caught

2257 Compliance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont see how he could possibly be in compliance. 2257 might end up biting him harder than the california charges.

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

So guesshermuff is no more?

Certainly falls under Indentify Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother and her present boyfriend had been getting trouble from her boyfriends brother, including a smashed front window to name one.

Long story short, he's been reported many times for various offences they told me about, most recent being he was using said information for financial-related websites, including reselling websites for 2nd-hand goods. So he ended up getting loads of messages about goods he never had.

By the sounds of the other things he has done, he has to be nominated to appear on those TV Shows, you know the ones, the worlds dumbest criminals, those kinds, he is seriously thick, so god damn thick.
While I would love to mention other things, obviously can't.
He is so determined to get put in prison.

Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[trout007]

I am making the assumption the photos were taken legality and not by trespassing or some illegal means. If this is the case why is this illegal?

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[Shados]

Being allowed to take a picture and redistributing it is two totally different things....

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Without even going into why you are an ass...

Not only does the article state this, the blog post states it explicitly.

The parts that were illegal for this case are the extortion and the ID theft.

The slimy part has just been made illegal, explicitly, because asses like you don't see how this should be illegal. See Xaedalus' explanation above about why it should be illegal and what should travel through your brain first, if you weren't a natural born ass.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is "information wants to be freeeeeeeee" slashdot, is it not?

Oh, i forgot: slashdot: home of hypocrites.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[jythie]

Well, slashdot, home of more then a single person and thus opinions on any particular topic vary by poster and thus a single thread or issue can have multiple mutually exclusive views since they were posted by different people.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[Billly Gates]

You are looking at this as a man and not as a woman.

It is very psychologically damaging for a woman to go through this and is as bad as a rape or someone ruining your name and a reputation complete with PST. Women have a hard time as it is and something like this showing up in a employer background check or a guy you want a date and male friends can ruin your life.

Or in other words how would you like if you went to the john at work and I snapped a photo next to you with my phone and posted it everywhere? Not illegal kind of extortion maybe?! ... or would you kick my ass in?

I would hope the later if you had self respect. Yes it is illegal as this is not public by any sense of the means and did harm.

This guy deserves what he gets.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[jandrese]

I don't know where you live, but in my country extortion is a crime.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[EvilSS]

Being allowed to take a picture and redistributing it is two totally different things....

Actually, under US law they are not in most circumstances. If I take your photo, even in a private setting (assuming the circumstances under which I'm taking it are legal), I own the copyright to that photograph and you have very, very little control over how I choose to use it. I can sell it, post it online, put it in a coffee table book, or have it displayed in a public exhibit all without your consent. The only time I need your consent is if I use it in a way that would imply that you, as a person, are endorsing a product or service. This is why comstock agencies are strict about model releases.

The way these laws work is why tabloids can exist and operate the way they do. This is why I feel like the new California "revenge porn" law is going to end up getting slapped down in the courts. It's pretty crappy but I can't see it working out any other way.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[AK Marc]

Because of the blackmail and extortion. He wasn't charged with "running a revenge porn site" or copyright infringement.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[PPH]

This is true.

It will be interesting to see if the new revenge porn law stands up in court. This does not appear to be a charge under that law, but a violation of extortion laws. Or of California identity theft law, if TFS is to be believed.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[trout007]

I don't see why blackmail should be illegal either. Extortion typically involves the threat of violence so I can see why that would be illegal.

Let's say you have an embassaing picture of a politician or celebrity in which it would damage their reputation. What is the difference if I offer to sell it to TMZ or to the celebrity?

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[trout007]

If I was in a bathroom you have the pressumption of privacy which is why you went in there in the first place. If I was taking a leak on the 5th green at the local golf course and you took a picture obviously not. If you were a friend and I posed for a picture taking a leak I also don't have a pressumption of privacy. That is why I asked were the pictures taken legally or not.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[taustin]

You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.

Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).

The reason tabloids can get away with their nonsense is that a) they take their photos from public places, and there is a well established principle that what can be seen from a public place can be photographed from a public place, and b) celebrities are public figures - people who have chosen to thrust themselves in to the public limelight. What is perfectly legal regarding a photo of a movie star is a privacy violation with a photo of Joe Sixpack, because the movie star are, in and of themselves, inherently newsworthy.

Very complicated body of law, variable (a lot) by state, but this case is pretty clear cut. This guy's going away.

(And the revenge porn law isn't going anywhere. Current iteration might have problems due to being written poorly, but those will get cleared up. It's entirely consistent with centuries of common law regarding privacy and the right to exploit.)

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[EvilSS]

You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.

It is always good to have one but there is no legal requirement for one. Street photography is a good example of this. There is also the case in NYC recently of a photographer photographing the tenants across the street through their open windows, exibiting and selling prints. The residents had no real legal recourse. Laws like those in California only kick in when the image is used to promote or endorse another product. If the image, itself, is the product, that does not trigger the law.

Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).

Also not true under most US law. Once you concent to being photographed, you give up most privacy related rights for that instance. This is the difference between a hidden camera pic (bathroom stalls, for example) and a photo you allow your SO to take. Newsworthy, again, is a matter of copyright, not privacy, law. If you look at the court cases around some of the sex tape releases (where the photographer was not in question and both parties had proportial access to legal representation) it's pretty clear.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[EvilSS]

This is also apparent in the way the California law was written:

This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to that same punishment.

Note that is specifically calls out that the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private. This is their attempt to create an implied agreement on the use of the image, one that does not exist under current law.

I, again, want to be clear that I would love to see this guy hang, he deserves it. I just question whether or not he actually broke the law the way they are currently written, and to make people aware that their believe on how the law works is probably wrong.

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh

Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

as far as i can tell, just selling it to someone else would be legal...however telling the person, in the photo, to give you money or you will release it or sell it to someone else becomes extortion.

Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Xaedalus]

Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.

What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I'd love to live in that world. We don't, though, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. You can try to shut down assholes like this, but excepting a major societal upheaval that changes the very core of humanity, there will always be more of them than you.

The Greater Internet Fuckwad theory has yet to be successfully challenged, and I believe it will remain that way. The logical course of action, then, is to advise people that this kind of behavior is unwise, for their own well-being, despite what kind of world you or I would like to live in.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an idea, don't want pics out there, don't send nudies. And no, the false sense of security you are trying to give girls isn't helping things.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Xaedalus]

Very few things in life are worth challenging the weight of reality behind the GIFT theory... freely-given private pictures of boobies from happy female friends and lovers are one of those things. This is WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives

Not unlike this animal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

That will never happen because it is not the website that is the problem but the people who received the photos. You are blaming the website owner for the wrong thing and by deflecting the blame you are moving further away from what perfect world you envision. It will never happen and it will always be a risk for both men and women to send those types of photos which is the whole point of intimacy.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a rather sad example of man that you prize nudie pics so much and so emotionally. Were you so traumatized when your mom destroy your prized playboy as a 13 year old and you never moved on ?

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[misexistentialist]

So you support establishing a new slut-protecting world order where you'll be too terrified to receive the pictures.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Those women are granting implicit temporary licenses for their copyrighted work. Let's get rid of literally ALL other copyright before going after this one.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Salgak1]

You DO realize, by stating that you have no fear of being hacked, that you just painted a target on your forehead.

ANYONE can be hacked. It may not be easy, or cheap, but you can be hacked, and even worse, may get hacked and NEVER KNOW IT.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[gmuslera]

Good luck with that, this is all the respect that had the NSA workers for the US soldiers in afganistan and their wives/girlfriends in 2008, maybe thet will respect you instead. And it could get much worse

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[bitt3n]

Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.

What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.

Self-righteous blustering on behalf of sexual freedom aside, there are arguments to be made firstly that a law criminalizing posting revenge porn is a paternalistic abomination, and secondly that the fact the law happens to benefit you personally is irrelevant to whether the law is justified.

The state does make laws that protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Thus we have laws against children buying alcohol and cigarettes, and we treat juvenile offenders differently from adults. We also have laws against taking advantage of the poor decision-making capabilities of the feeble-minded. It is another thing entirely to afford such protection to a group of people one would suppose to comprise rational adults. It is worth considering whether any benefits of the law are worth the cost of placing women as a whole (and these sites appear to focus near exclusively on pictures of women) amongst the rest of those we presume not to hold wholly responsible for their actions, especially given that women already have a difficult time getting taken seriously.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[kick6]

Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.

In other words, you want to live in the feminist utopia where women are protected from all negative consequences for their actions. You want to live in a world where a vagina is a de facto get out of - not just jail, everything - free card. No, fuck that. UNLESS the same is afforded to men.............which it never will be, so fuck that.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are already laws against blackmail, and they don't discriminate based on who the victim is.

You're right about a posting law, though. The law we really need is a law against penalizing somebody because there happen to be naked pictures of them floating around. Fire somebody because you saw her naked on the Internet? Busted.

But more important than law is social change. Any piece of shit, male or female, who dares call anybody a "slut", ever, under any circumstances, needs to be brought up short and excluded from polite society. That shouldn't be any more acceptable than calling somebody a "nigger", and any discrimination should be treated the same way. If you don't like somebody else's sex life, the absolute least you need to do is STFU.

And, by the way, yes, that applies to your kindergarten teachers.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[morgauxo]

That's not going to happen.. ever. Sorry, it's just human nature. Sometimes breakups are messy, people get emotional and emotion + human = stupid. Give those pic out and eventually one will get posted online somewhere. That's life.

Lucky for you I don't think angry ex's posting the pics is the underlying trend. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some girls used to give their guys polaroids but I doubt that was ever anywhere near as common as today's sexting. Technology has made it easier to share and it has made what is shared easier to re-share.

What might be more likely than this safe sexting utopia you dream of is similar yet opposite. Girls keep taking those pics (and yes, guys do it sometimes too). Occasionaly they keep get posted online. Eventually, maybe, just maybe, people wake up and realize that sex is a natural thing, that people do stuff, and sometimes people take pictures. Maybe then a pic posted online won't result in "slut-shaming". Maybe then people will stop harassing someone whose pics were posted. Maybe instead they will think, man, that girls ex is a d1ck for posting that! Maybe somebody posting stuff about you online won't endanger your job anymore.

That might take a couple more generations though... Meanwhile a lot of people get hurt.

Really, what I mean isn't that it's ok to post somebody's nude pics without their permission. Nor do i think people should all want their pictures posted for the world to see. It's that the greatest damage comes from how this current society reacts to those pictures. Since the pictures aren't going away, maybe someday society can grow up a bit and respond better. Maybe then the posting of pictures will be a minor annoyance that is part of life rather than a major crisis.

Of course, the majority now, or in this possible future aren't thinking about the girl or the guy who posted her as they view those pics. They are just enjoying the view. That part will never change.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Alef]

No, most laws are not there to protect the weak. Some are, yes, but one of the primary purposes of law is to enable trust between individuals. This is what makes society function. If I own a house and hire carpenters to work on it, I can leave them working in the house while I go out, to a great extent because laws ensure that stealing from me is illegal. You could say that, well, you are a rational adult, and if you leave them there by themselves you can suit yourself if they nab stuff -- it's not society's role to prosecute them for it. And yes, we could build such a society. But it would be a completely dysfunctional one where the overhead for doing any kind of business transactions would be so large that the economy would probably collapse.

I really don't see what the benefit is of allowing idiots to upload nude pics they have gotten hold of, for everyone to see, with the purpose of revenge and causing humiliation. Why is that ever a good thing? Isn't it much better that men and women can have a reasonable trust (not perfect, but reasonable) in that whatever intimate things they record with their girlfriend or boyfriend won't at some later stage get published on the Internet against their will, backed by laws in the same way my possessions are when I hire carpenters?

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[morgauxo]

No! He was already traumatized when he realized his mom was IN his prized Playboy!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Xaedalus]

Self-righteous blustering... yeah, you'r right. You got me. Stupidity + instantaneous access to /. wins again. You have a good rebuttal.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[hazah]

You sir, stand for justice. Respect.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[hazah]

What's sad is this response. Projecting much?

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

A few thoughts.
1. some people are simply untrustworthy and will post pics given in confidence simply because they are assholes. the act is inherently risky.
2. sometimes in breakups both parties behave badly. (I've been cheated-on and lied-to, but I remained a perfect gentleman and had no thoughts of publicizing the pics to "get back" :)
3. if society were so sexually liberated as you wish it was, then the man in the article wouldn't be able to extort money in the first place, and women (and men) sending out nude pics would be as innocent as them sending pictures of breakfast. "slut-shaming" wouldn't be a thing, it would simply be ignored. but people sending out naughty pics are doing it knowing there is a risk involved, they don't intend for other parties to view the picture, and that risk/exhibition/yielding to trust is part of the excitement.
3b. the state of propriety must be kept for these pictures to remain titillating and desirable.
4. "throw the book" - glad to see you believe there is a link between punishment and crime, though I think for cases like these, it's as likely to work as marijuana prohibition.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[hazah]

The thing about the word 'slut' is that it's not *always* used to offend. Like with "nigger", there is a trend in the western world for women to own the word in a similar fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_walk. Just saying there is more to this than just the surface.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Partial disagree. I think cheating, or enabling cheaters, or destroying trust in that form, is slutty, detrimental to relationships, and those people deserve to have shame and scorn heaped upon them. And I don't care if society thinks promiscuity in that form is okay, nor do I care if society thinks I'm a piece of shit for thinking that way. If someone was so confident and proud of their behaviour, they would ignore, rather than be shamed by, the "slut" term.

When it doesn't hurt anybody else or break trust? Go nuts and enjoy.

Also disagree on comparing it to "nigger," a person chooses to be and acts promiscuous, a person does not choose their race.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[bitt3n]

It is purest sophistry to suggest that laws against theft exist to protect one against the consequences of his decision to put himself in a situation where theft from him would be possible. One might take every conceivable precaution against theft and still find himself a victim of theft. Even were everyone to be so prudent, laws against theft would still be necessary in order to dissuade potential thieves from deciding to take up the profession. Conversely, the revenge-porn law, insofar as it covers incidents in which the victim willingly took and sent the relevant pictures, protects people from their own choices, and is thus different in kind.

I really don't see what the benefit is

That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal. Hence the argument that "no one needs an assault weapon" or "no one needs to buy liquor on Sunday" are in themselves insufficient to justify associated restrictions. Likewise, that one can conceive of benefits for a law is not grounds for enacting it. One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.

If the law were to protect women from the posting of photos stolen from them, or taken without their consent, this would be another matter. As it stands, it should raise the hackles of feminists everywhere.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[s0nicfreak]

Laws are there to keep us acting civilized, in theory. In practice they keep most people acting civilized only when they fear being caught. Trust can't be based on the idea that the other person fears being caught. If the only motivation is fear of being caught, then as soon as they are sure they won't be caught, or as soon as they don't fear the consequences (or the result is greater than the consequence), they will do the action they wish to do.

So even though laws exist against carpenters stealing from me, I wouldn't trust anything other than Amish carpenters alone working on my house. Because the carpenters would have to be caught stealing for the law to work - and they would likely steal something I wouldn't immediately realize was gone, and/or have the item away from them quickly so there is no proving who stole it. The very existence of the law does not reassure me that they won't steal from me, and it would be naive to be reassured by that.

The point? Revenge feels good. Looking at porn feels good. People are always going to do what feels good, especially after something that makes them feel bad (like being dumped). So don't take nude pics if you don't want people seeing nude pics of you.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Hizonner]

So call them a "cheater", "liar", whatever? And before you do even that, you should probably think about whether doing so is going to do anybody any good or just add to the world's unhappiness.

Even if you feel the person needs to be called out, "slut" is a bad choice of name for the case you describe, because it fundamentally means "person who has more sex than I think they should", or maybe "person who has sex with more people than I think they should", not "person who breaks promises".

I see where you're going with the "choice" thing, but I still agree with the GP. The bottom line with name calling is that you're trying to make somebody feel miserable for something that's none of your business. Whether they chose it or not is secondary.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[bitt3n]

Thanks. It's refreshing to see someone accept such criticism gracefully.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Also like "nigger", if you use it to describe somebody other than YOU, you're taking a risk. If you don't know the person you're describing damned well, you're taking an even bigger risk. If you don't know everybody who might hear you well, you're taking a risk. And if you're not obviously one YOURSELF, you're pretty much never going to be in the right using it.

Anyhow, "calling" somebody something kind of means using it as an insult.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

not saying the people that sent in the photos weren't also to blame but the website owner was very clearly running an extortion racket when he started charging the women to take the photos down..

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about protecting people who made a bad choice. It's about punishing people who post someone's pictures without permission. If I send someone a nude picture of myself with the condition that they may not share it with anyone, and they post it to a revenge porn site, it's not my fault for taking the picture. It's their fault for posting the photos without permission.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[hazah]

Not in the bedroom. :P.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pathetic.

Re: Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume he wants to exclude men from those same protections? This does not make sense.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Alef]

You are oversimplifying human psychology. For one thing, the laws have a normative function apart from the practical cost/benefit equation of getting caught, and that also affects human behaviour. As are you the situation with the carpenters; someone might walk in on them, or I might have a camera, the effect of which is much greater when I have the support of the state to prosecute them if they steal.

I can recommend you to read Liars and Outliers, by Bruce Schneier, for an extensive treatment of how trust is created and works in modern society.

Saying "don't take nude pics if you don't want people seeing nude pics of you" doesn't really make an argument. My point is: why should we limit ourself to that narrow dichotomy when we don't need to? It's stupid and unnecessary. Sure people "are always going to do what feels good", including sharing nude pics of themselves to people they love in the expectation that they are kept private. Why should they be punished for it (by ridicule and shame) instead of (by law) the douche bag who intentionally and maliciously spread them? Yes, it's always going to be some risk having nude pics of you exist somewhere, obviously, but so what? You haven't really answered why you think it is such a good idea to allow revenge porn in the first place. Instead, you are blaming the victim, which I actually find rather distasteful -- a bit like "if you didn't want to get raped, why did you wear such a short skirt?".

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Alef]

That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal.

Neither is it an argument for keeping it legal, which was my point. In a cost-benefit analysis, what is the benefit of keeping it legal as opposed to the obvious costs?

One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.

Huh? What are you implying here? That if someone else publishes embarrassing material on you, that means you were mentally incompetent? Or that if you trust someone who later betrays you, you are also mentally incompetent? Or that if there even exists embarrassing pictures of you somewhere, you are mentally incompetent?

Also, when the fsck did this become a gender issue? I'm a guy, and I don't want others to maliciously post nude pics of me either, if they for some reason have gotten hold of any.

If the law were to protect women from the posting of photos stolen from them, or taken without their consent, this would be another matter.

Really, why? Why does it matter how they got hold of the pictures? Presumably, they were not given to the perpetrator with an implied consent to publish them openly on-line. Or is that what you argue; that if some girl shares intimate pictures of herself with you in confidence, perhaps because she cares about you and trusts you, you should have the implied right to break that confidence and do with them whatever you like for whatever reasons, even if the sole purpose is to harm her? Why is that so important to you?

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

You should consider pushing for a nudist society then.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

please dont send me nudes ever. thanks.

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

That is the funniest comment I have heard all day.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[HiThere]

No. That, also, would be coercive. But one being nude was allowed in public as well as in private, yes.

FWIW, in cold weather I don't want to be nude. In hot weather, I often do. But there are sanitary reasons why total nudism is often a poor idea. We live in densely packed social clusters, so sanitary concerns are appropriate. Please, however, note that this NEVER applies to photos.

That said, it should be (and I think is) a copyright violation to post a photo of someone without their explicit written permission. And of course, extortion is not acceptable, even if it's just a picture of someone eating hotdogs. (Not that I imagine you could demand much for such a picture...that's irrelevant.)

Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass

[omnichad]

...horny?

No reference yet to Monty Python!?!?

[Virtucon]

It's Blackmail!

Hello, good evening, and welcome to 'Blackmail'! And to start tonight's program, we go to Preston in Lancashire, and Mrs Betty Teal!
Hello, Mrs Teal!
Now this is for £15 and it's to stop us revealing the name of your lover in Bolton.
So Mrs Teal...if you send us £15 by return post, please, and your husband Trevor, and your lovely children, Diane, Janice and Juliet need never know the name of your lover in Bolton.

I'll let you debate this

[ExFCER]

But my immediate thought was...good. We have freedom beyond belief but some things are not allowed. CP Someone else's PI.

Cocci bollaerti (slime of the times)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission, and under anti-extortion legislation, according to court documents."

What is this Identifying Information? I understand the extortion charge but not this. This charge (and probably the law cited) doesn't make sense to me unless it means that I can charge my phone company, bank and any credit rating agency for use of my "identifying information" as well. And what does that say about the NSA, are they co-conspiritorial voyeurs?

Bollaert a "slime of the times."

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that trolling? You don't have a damn clue as to what that word means. CA is again shitting all over our rights, and you anti-Constitutionalists are loving it. Calling people childish names doesn't change the facts. You can't even ride a bicycle in that state without a helmet without getting attacked by a LEO. The last time I rode one, a cop gave me a worse head injury than I've ever had from riding. The people in CA get so angry and hateful towards people that want freedom.

This was on OTM

[Anonymous Coward]

For deeper comentary, this was on On The Media last week (http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/dec/). My favorite part is when Bollaert said he wouldn't post pics of his Mom or sister because that was gross....

Re:This was on OTM

[McGruber]

For deeper comentary, this was on On The Media last week (http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/dec/). My favorite part is when Bollaert said he wouldn't post pics of his Mom or sister because that was gross....

On the Media interviewed Hunter Moore, a different douchebag. Like Bollaert, Hunter Moore ran a revenge porn site, but Moore (apparently) honored removal requests.... then he took down his entire site.

Your ex is a bitch...

[istartedi]

Your ex is a bitch, but Karma is a bigger bitch. Multiply that by all the users on the web site. He's lucky the law got to him first.

Arrest Warrant

[McGruber]

Here's the link to the Arrest Warrant: http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/Arrest%20warrant_0.pdf

Re:Arrest Warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

".... evidence extracted from BOLLEART'S computer..."

sounds like they already did the search and seizure and are trying to launder the evidence through a bogus warrant, the probable cause evidence being based on an illegal search.

I guess

[s0nicfreak]

I'm the only one that thinks this being illegal is ridiculous.

Do we honestly have to protect women from their own stupidity (in giving nude pictures to people that will post them online when they break up)? Because in doing so, we are just exacerbating that stupidity. And if women are of equal intelligence to men, then they shouldn't need a law that protects them from such stupidity (and while I realize that the law covers both genders, I don't see men getting into this same situation). I say get rid of the law that makes "revenge porn" illegal, and let the women pay the fee to have their pics removed, so that they can learn their lesson, and other women will not continue to be stupid (in that way) with the idea that they have the safety net of the law.

Re:I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Sorry I get your point of "teaching someone a lesson", but I think the lesson is learned when they have to go and ask someone to take the pics off the site. I can assure you that if you had compromising information about me and you asked me to send you money to remove it? I can pretty much guarantee I would show up when you least expect it and put a couple of suppressed .45 slugs into your useless kneecaps.

I'm all about teaching a lesson - but demanding money to do what you should do in the first place puts you square in the crosshairs of someone teaching YOU a lesson in simple humanity.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. So go ahead and hide behind your veil of righteousness. It will stand out from the backdrop of reality and give people like me an easier target to hit. :-)

Re:I guess

[PPH]

Define stupidity.

I have an acquaintance that was getting ready to engage in what she thought was a private act with a few 'friends'. As she was getting started, one of them concealed and activated a camera. The resulting pictures now live in perpetuity on the Internet (initially Yahoo groups, but reposted from time to time on 4chan).

Not all pictures are taken with a subject's permission. And some are, but can be misappropriated by other than the intended recipient (someone picks up a phone and uploads them for example).

Re:I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

*Shrug* If I rape your wife or daughter, it'll teach her to quit looking so hot. She should know that it's just asking for it. Why protect her from her own stupidity?

Re:I guess

[s0nicfreak]

In that situation, the stupidity was engaging in a sexual act with people she didn't know well enough to realize one of them would hide a camera, and in not being aware enough of her surroundings to realize someone was putting/had put up a camera.

Taking pictures and never expecting them to be seen is also stupidity. If you don't want people seeing pictures... don't take them. Don't put yourself into situations where pictures you don't want being seen, can be taken without your knowledge.

Re:I guess

[s0nicfreak]

I don't have a wife, as gay marriage and polygamy aren't legal in my state. But I teach my daughter to not be so stupid as to put herself into situations where she can be raped and there is no one around to help her. It has worked so far.

Re:I guess

[s0nicfreak]

Fine; then allow the site to continue on the condition that the operator removes any pictures at the direct request of any person in the pictures

If you shoot me for running a website with pictures of you, then the website will still be up and I won't be in jail, but you will. Not exactly the smartest of strategies for dealing with that imo.

Re:I guess

[brantondaveperson]

[not] put herself into situations where she can be raped and there is no one around to help her.

You mean like walking down the street? That sure sounds like a fun life.

Re:I guess

[s0nicfreak]

No, we actually talk to our neighbors, and they would offer help if she were raped or grabbed on the street.

Re:I guess

[s0nicfreak]

Also I'm not really sure what your point is; rape still happens despite the fact that there are laws against it. So rape kind of backs up my point that women need to stop being stupid, and not rely on laws to protect them.

Re:I guess

[brantondaveperson]

Ok - so she only gets to walk around alone if she's in your immediate neighbourhood?

Look, I'm sure you're a good parent and everything - but frankly your suggestion that a woman should never be in a position where she can be raped is just victim blaming in disguise. A woman can be raped just about anywhere - up to and including being alone in her house.

Re:I guess

[s0nicfreak]

Well it doesn't really make much sense to walk out of my neighborhood - getting into a car would be the preferable method for traveling any further than that. I've taught her to look in the car to see if anyone is hiding inside before entering, not so much for rape evasion but more for mugger evasion as I grew up in a neighborhood where that was common.

Perhaps in your neighborhood people are raped in their houses. In mine people have the courtesy to call the cops when someone breaks into a neighbor's house. I've lived in neighborhoods where they don't, and I sympathize with you. If things change for us then we'll think up a new method for rape evasion. Not being hot isn't really an option and obviously, laws against rape don't work.

Re:I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that the assailant in most rape cases is somebody that the victim knows, right? Your daughter is much more likely to be raped by your next-door neighbor or somebody she knows at school than she is by a random person on the street.

But also, I hope you put as much effort into teach your son(s) to respect women as you do into teaching your daughter that it's her job to avoid being raped.

Re:I guess

[Yosho]

How do you know when you know somebody well enough to know that they wouldn't hide a camera? And if somebody is hiding a camera, how is it reasonable to expect the other person to search their surroundings thoroughly enough to discover that the camera is hidden?

Maybe a more reasonable solution is that it should just be illegal to take a picture of somebody in a private situation without their permission. It is not "stupidity" to expect other people to be decent and follow the law.

Re:I guess

[Zaelath]

Berating a woman after the fact for being "so stupid" as to allow herself to be raped is victim blaming.

Giving a woman the tools and situational awareness to avoid it in the first place is a rational reaction to an extant risk. The culture of "I should be safe to" is a ridiculous denial of reality. If you wander through a bad neighborhood alone at night and get mugged, it's not your fault either, but you avoid being in that situation because it's stupid.

Re:I guess

[PPH]

The world is full of sociopaths. It would be a damned shame if one of them conned you out of something of value and you had no recourse.

Bernie Madoff comes to mind as an example.

Re:I guess

[brantondaveperson]

This is an awfully peculiar discussion.

I'm very pleased to hear that your neighbourhood is crime-free to the extent that you are able to teach your child that... wait, you're teaching her to pretty much be afraid wherever she is. Look inside the car before you get in, in case there's a mugger in there? Are you serious?

Anyway, my neighbourhood is fine thanks. My point is a more general one, and isn't related to where I live or to where you live. It's related to the statement that you feel it necessary to teach someone that they should never put themselves in a position where they can be attacked. I do not see how it is possible to achieve that, and further I believe that it generates an unnecessary climate of fear around everything that person does.

But I really don't want to argue with you about this - I just wanted to make the point that it is never the fault of the victim under any circumstances. It is always the responsibility of the attacker. Always. And none of us, male or female, should ever feel that we have to live in fear just because we could be raped or attacked. And in the original article, the lady in question should have an expectation of privacy when in private, and people that secretly film others and then publish the footage should be punished as harshly as the law allows. And arguing that it was her fault because she put herself in that position is nothing more than victim blaming.

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

(GP here) Are you honestly so stupid you can't tell the difference between extortion and "teh librulz is restricting free speech"? Calling you a troll isn't a "childish name", it's an obvious fact.

The people in CA get so angry and hateful towards people that want freedom.

My god, you're an idiot. Please kill yourself and any children you might have had.

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

You must really hate freedom considering how upset you get over people trying to protect their right to privacy... or maybe when an issue involves two opposed rights things get messy.

ya doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what usenets for genius.

Could charge the submitters $10k to not report

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just banking on this dudes, eh eh? It worked for Whitey Bulgar....I bet this webmaster's wife set him up this way so to bill any boyfriend likewise if they would ever post revenge porn of their gf's.

"Some people say there's a woman to blame..."..."

Name, Location (Address), Age, FB Profile

[Anonymous Coward]

All public record information. Posting this information is not violating their privacy.

Archive.org anyone?

[triffid_98]

Go go wayback machine!

Its only confusing if you are a fucking retard

[Anonymous Coward]

Catch someone infringing on your copyright or patent and offer to settle out of court for a fee. OK.
Post someones private information and nude photos and try and extort $350 for removing them. Not OK

But is it really all "revenge porn"?

[LauraScudder]

So we're still talking about these sites as if all the pictures are from angry exes? The last big one of these sites to go down was found in large part to be made up of photos stolen from hacked email accounts by strangers who enjoyed ruining random women's lives.

Why are so many women doing 'porn' anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it possibly have anything to do with our Jewish 'masters'? Of course not...

Re: Your "F" ing joking right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you let someone unknown place your naked picture(s) on web sites and post your personal information online
for all to see. And if you don't like what that person is doing just pay them to remove it.
Or your mother, wife, sister, girl friend, dad, etc.
Your response is so full of crap.
So the bankers, etc that cause the last recession aren't as bad as someone that would walk into a bank with a
gun. The bankers caused trillions of dollars of damage! And the bank robber with a gun, 98% + are caught.

I really hope you become a victim some day and really experience how it feels.

how is this different thank mugshots.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get that the pictures aren't nude pictures of people, but they are compromising pictures. Mugshots.com requires you to pay $400 per picture to have them removed. They also do search engine optimization to get the results to the top of searches.

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please kill yourself"

Why should he kill himself when it is a fact that so many people here in CA that are so anti-freedom? Why side with a group of people working hard to make our state more totalitarian.

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

> two opposed rights

The CA law makes it illegal for a photographer to publish their pictures if a third-party believes that they shouldn't. Saying that photographers have no right to do with their property what they want to do is wrong. The USOC is going to hammer the state of CA over this. Preventing journalists from publishing is wrong by anyone's measure. Well, that is if you believe in the freedom of the press which the state government of CA has proven over and over again to be against.

Re:Again, CA comes-out against the 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you believe in freedom of the press. You are obviously a liar when you claim to be from CA. I'm from there, and I have never met a single person from there that has that mistaken belief. The press has no right to publish. Photographers can only publish with the permission of the subjects. Ever single damn person I know, and I know a lot of people, from CA sides against journalists. Go to hell you stupid liar. You are not a Californian. Photographers have no rights.

Extortion

[nurb432]

Never a good business plan, if you do it in public.

Re: Your "F" ing joking right?

[Cederic]

I posted a naked picture of myself online.

Occasionally I send the URL to people that haven't seen it before just to shock them. They ALWAYS view it, even though I clearly indicate that it's me, it's naked, and it's a file with 'naked' in the filename.

However, someone posts my full name, address, pictures and other details and I don't like it.. I'll use the DPA against them.

This is one reason I don't exist on Facebook. It's rather lovely.

No fair

[sglines]

With this law we wouldn't have Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. On the other hand - this is a good law.