Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website

Posted by Unknown on from the someone's-going-to-jail dept.

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.'"

35 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Please don't kill me by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pics or it didn't happen.

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

    *DUCKS*

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  2. He could get out of the charge by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:He could get out of the charge by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:He could get out of the charge by DiEx-15 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:He could get out of the charge by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:He could get out of the charge by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:He could get out of the charge by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:He could get out of the charge by McGruber · · Score: 5, Informative

      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."

    7. Re:He could get out of the charge by tipo159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    8. Re:He could get out of the charge by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:He could get out of the charge by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So... by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:So... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  4. Quick... by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Quick, sue the NSA.

    1. Re:Quick... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by Huntr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    2. Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by edibobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    4. Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by Gryle · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    5. Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... by swb · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Extortion then? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal? by Shados · · Score: 2

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

  8. Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass by Xaedalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass by Xaedalus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    2. Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass by Alef · · Score: 2

      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?".

    3. Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass by Alef · · Score: 2

      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?

  9. Re:What was this guy thinking? by SirGarlon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  10. No reference yet to Monty Python!?!? by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  11. Arrest Warrant by McGruber · · Score: 2

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

  12. Re:This was on OTM by McGruber · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:Slimy yes but how is it illegal? by taustin · · Score: 2

    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.)

  14. Re:I guess by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

    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.