Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tor Project Sued Over a Revenge Porn Business That Used Its Service

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 9, 2014 @06:03AM from the tor-is-a-series-of-eeeeevil-tubes dept.

redletterdave writes: The Tor Project has been sued in the state of Texas over a revenge porn website that used its free encrypted communications service. The plaintiff in the case — Shelby Conklin, a criminal justice major at the University of North Texas — alleges a revenge porn site called Pinkmeth "gained unauthorized access to nude photographs" she owned and posted them to the internet. She also said Tor, which The Economist once called "a dark corner of the web," was involved in an active "civil conspiracy" with Pinkmeth because the revenge porn website used the anonymous communications service to prevent others from tracking its location.

187 of 311 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Texas has "the Internets" these days? Did they wire up the trailer parks?
1. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wire? Copper is too expensive. They had WoPC (Wireless over Pringle Cantenna) before we quit running Cat 5 through our mothers basements.
2. Re:Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Have you been living under a rock? Austin is the #1 fastest growing city in the country, and it is often referred to as "the new silicon valley." Texas has 4 of the 10 largest cities and 2 of the 5 largest metropolitan areas by population in the United States.
3. Re:Redneck roadhouse by SuricouRaven · 2014-07-09 06:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's also a state where you can be imprisoned for owning a sex toy.
  Texas's economic success masks the widespread archaic views of the population.
4. Re:Redneck roadhouse by Anathem · 2014-07-09 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Rather, I think it brings them to light.
5. Re:Redneck roadhouse by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2014-07-09 06:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I lived there for 5 years before migrating back to the West Coast. The larger cities (Austin and Dallas) were perfectly livable. The smaller towns though have definitely done everything they can do to live up to the uber-conservative, racist, and ignorant stereotypes foisted upon them. At the time I was dating a lovely black girl I had met in school, on campus and in the larger cities nobody shot us a second glance. As soon as we got to bumfuck country though, all bets were off...and I'm a goddamn Mexican!
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
6. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  To clarify: owning more than four dildos is a felony. To boot, this is actively enforced.
  Bestality is legal, however.
7. Re:Redneck roadhouse by uCallHimDrJ0NES · 2014-07-09 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Have you been living under a rock? Austin is the #1 fastest growing city in the country, and it is often referred to as "the new silicon valley." Texas has 4 of the 10 largest cities and 2 of the 5 largest metropolitan areas by population in the United States.
  No one easier to wind up than a Texan. Austin or Houston, they go down real easy.
  
  --
  Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
8. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Anon-Admin · 2014-07-09 07:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  before we quit running Cat 5 through our mothers basements.
  Look a Yankee
  There are almost no basements in Texas.
9. Re:Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Austin doesn't have the road infrastructure to support its growth. In fact, except for the road from the airport (a 3 mile stretch) there have been no major improvements in the main roadways since 1995, other than the toll road additions. In fact, one of the two only usable north-south routes is going to be made into a tollway, with an escalating fee depending on how many people are on it.
  If you want a livable Texas city, try San Antonio.
10. Re:Redneck roadhouse by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Bigotry is fashionable among those who self-proclaim to be progressive.
  Right? One would think that people as intellectual as "progressives" like to consider themselves would see the irony in acting like fundamentalists.
  Of course, just because a person considers themselves something, doesn't necessarily make it so...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
11. Re: Redneck roadhouse by SuricouRaven · 2014-07-09 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  Owning more than four, or offering one for sale. Much as with drugs, owning more than a quantity deemed appropriate for personal use is automatically considered intent to distribute.
12. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-07-09 09:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'm SUING the manufacturers of BOX CUTTERS for the complicit CONSPIRACY they participated in on 9/11/2001!
  -- Mayor 9u11iani.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
13. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Culture20 · 2014-07-09 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  There are almost no basements in Texas.
  Why not? You'd think they'd be a nice place to cool off.
14. Re: Redneck roadhouse by painandgreed · 2014-07-09 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Southerners do, dumbass.
  Actually, we usually say "damn Yankee".
15. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Desler · 2014-07-09 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Owning. Because it'a considered obscene and promoting others to be obscene.
  
  Sec. 43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device.
  ...
  (f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
  http://www.statutes.legis.stat...
16. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in South Carolina for 31 years (since birth). Trust me, the term is quite alive and well around here. As a matter of fact hate for Northerners is much stronger than racism these days and has little to do with the Confederacy. There's just a cultural divide. We've had 150 years to integrate the races and for the most part the southern whites and the southern blacks get along fine, but I can't hear a Brooklyn or Boston accent without anger stirring from within.
17. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  before we quit running Cat 5 through our mothers basements.
  Look a Yankee
  There are almost no basements in Texas.
  Screw basements! Who still uses cat 5?
18. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Nyder · 2014-07-09 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived in South Carolina for 31 years (since birth). Trust me, the term is quite alive and well around here. As a matter of fact hate for Northerners is much stronger than racism these days and has little to do with the Confederacy. There's just a cultural divide. We've had 150 years to integrate the races and for the most part the southern whites and the southern blacks get along fine, but I can't hear a Brooklyn or Boston accent without anger stirring from within.
  Don't worry about, I live in the North (well, Northwest) and we refer to you southerners as Rednecks, hillybillyies, racists and of course, you are all a bunch of interbreeding good old boys.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
19. Re: Redneck roadhouse by sillybilly · 2014-07-09 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Kids, let's all learn to respect each other and live in peace and harmony!
20. Re: Redneck roadhouse by sillybilly · 2014-07-09 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I had my own basement.
21. Re: Redneck roadhouse by sillybilly · 2014-07-09 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm using cat 5 right now, as I'm typing this. Easiest way to defend against wireless hacking, just use a wire.
22. Re: Redneck roadhouse by sillybilly · 2014-07-09 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why would a woman need 4 dildos? She only has 3 holes to fill at the same time.
23. Re:Redneck roadhouse by jebblue · 2014-07-09 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  >> The smaller towns though have definitely done everything they can do to live up to the uber-conservative, racist, and ignorant stereotypes foisted upon them. That's an ignorant comment.
24. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Noah+Haders · 2014-07-09 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  before we quit running Cat 5 through our mothers basements.
  Look a Yankee
  There are almost no basements in Texas.
  there's no basement in the Alamo! http://youtu.be/XuWSK9A_A1M
25. Re: Redneck roadhouse by davester666 · 2014-07-09 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  once you have more than one for each hole, it's illegal? that's some quality legal thinking.
  I wonder how many Senators and Representatives currently are violating this law? All of them, or just 180?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
26. Re: Redneck roadhouse by Neil+Boekend · 2014-07-09 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  To make the most silly hat ever.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
27. Re:Redneck roadhouse by Neil+Hodges · 2014-07-10 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  I may be weird, but I don't associate 'car dependence' with 'livable.'
IETF next by GameboyRMH · 2014-07-09 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

They set the standards for the TCP/IP protocol, the one used by the packets which conspired with the Tor network to move data around untraceably!

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:IETF next by jfdavis668 · 2014-07-09 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  Civil engineers are sued when they make mistakes designing a road.
2. Re:IETF next by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-07-09 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  But only after the crypto library...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:IETF next by amicusNYCL · 2014-07-09 07:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  She's on quite the fishing expedition. Here is another lawsuit filed by her, from 2012, suing Pinkmeth (again), Katz Global Media (for the crime of providing anonymous hosting), and Verisign. Yeah, she sued Verisign. Maybe that suit didn't work out so well, so she thought she would try her hand against Tor. Not exactly the best way to make a name for herself as a criminal justice major. I suspect that pursuing suits like these will serve is much more of a "loss in earning capacity" than a porn picture ever would. She might also be interested that her Facebook profile is open for the world to see. Here she is.
  Maybe she's just trying to clog up the Google search results for her name with information about lawsuits instead of her actual pictures. You have to go to page 4 to find this one (which is not Pinkmeth), page 6 for this one (also not Pinkmeth), and page 8 for this one (again, not Pinkmeth).
  I'm assuming she has no proof that would allow her to sue the person actually responsible for distributing the pictures (you know, other than her). Life lesson learned, I suppose. Try not to clog up the justice system.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
4. Re:IETF next by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Better analogy would be to start suing the civil engineers for all of the hit and run accidents that happen on roads they designed, for making it possible for the driver to get away.
5. Re:IETF next by jader3rd · 2014-07-09 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  They set the standards for the TCP/IP protocol, the one used by the packets which conspired with the Tor network to move data around untraceably!
  Except that she's going after the part that made tracking a source difficult/impossible. With normal TCP/IP you can track where packets are coming from.
6. Re:IETF next by bluefoxlucid · 2014-07-09 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  All these people can file SLAPP motion. Even the legitimate ones can claim she's running SLAPP cases around the whole issue, and have her barred from bringing this shit up ever again.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:IETF next by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Civil engineers are sued when they make mistakes designing a road.
  Yea, but they don't get sued for the things people use the roads they designed for. Which is what's happening here.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
8. Re:IETF next by P1h3r1e3d13 · 2014-07-09 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but not when they build a good road and somebody uses it to traffic drugs.
9. Re:IETF next by nurb432 · 2014-07-09 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  At least the ITEF can afford it. TOR could well have to close up after they are sucked dry of every dime, even if they win....
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
10. Re:IETF next by Obfuscant · 2014-07-09 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  Yea, but they don't get sued for the things people use the roads they designed for. Which is what's happening here.
  Gun and airplane manufacturers do. In a classic case, an idiot modified his Piper Cub aircraft by removing the front seat and installing a camera, ignored the NOTAM that closed the airport he was intending to depart from, ignored the van the airport manager had parked on the closed runway, tried to depart, hit the van and conked his head on the camera he had installed. Estate sued Piper for making a dangerous airplane.
  And, of course, remember something called Napster? They provided directories of potentially copyright infringing material, just like Archie, Gopher, and Veronica had done years before.
11. Re:IETF next by Matheus · 2014-07-09 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing worse than Lawyers is fscking law students. Do away with 'em all!!!
12. Re:IETF next by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-10 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Gun manufacturers used to get sued, until Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005.
  Personally, I find it a bit mind-blowing that people would actually sue a company for something another person did with their product, rather than a defect. But then, I'm not a litigious jackass looking for my next quick buck.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
13. Re:IETF next by amicusNYCL · 2014-07-10 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck? Do you call rape victims sluts and publicly humiliate them?
  I sure don't, but that has no bearing on this conversation. At all.
  
  she was clearly wronged
  Yes, she was wronged. Who wronged her? Was it Pinkmeth? Was it Verisign? Was it Katz? Was it the Tor project? No, it was none of those. It was whoever she sent those pictures to, whoever stole her phone, etc. I don't see that individual listed on her lawsuit, which is the reason her lawsuit (not her personally) is deserving of ridicule. Asserting that Pinkmeth is engaged in a conspiracy with Tor is ridiculous (literally - deserving of ridicule). The reason I included links was to show that suing Pinkmeth will have no effect on whether or not people will see her pictures. Those links were within the first 8 pages of Google results for her name, and none of them point to Pinkmeth. In short, not Pinkmeth, nor Verisign, nor Katz, nor Tor are the reasons why her images are online. The person who posted the images is the reason why they are online. If she wants justice, she needs to go after that person, not useful things that plenty of other people use for completely legitimate reasons.
  
  What's the benefit?
  It's a little strange that I have to point this out, but the benefit of Tor is anonymity and the ability to not be tracked. Hopefully you understand why protection of privacy is a good thing for everyone, not just people interested in committing a crime. If you want the argument for why Tor is a good thing, read what the EFF has to say about it.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
14. Re:IETF next by kamapuaa · 2014-07-10 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  How does that justify posting her nudes? What were you trying to accomplish? You can understand that it comes off as "I disagree with her about something, so here is a personal attack where I post her nudez on the Internet." Very childish and not really part of any argument. It's just being an asshole.
  Perhaps anonymity is a good thing. Perhaps tor is great. A mean-spirited personal attack isn't the way to support it. It undermines your argument, because it's tempting to believe that anybody who does such an asshole move must be wrong.
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Pretty sure this won't work by GameboyRMH · 2014-07-09 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

On the Tor darknet are sites which host and trade enormous amounts of child porn, and one which specializes in leaked nude photos of celebrities, some of which have been successfully removed from the web. If it were legally possible to sue the Tor project over .onion sites, it would have been done a looooong time ago.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by l0ungeb0y · 2014-07-09 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You forget that this case is in Texas and that Porn and the Internet are involved. Quite literally anything can happen here.
2. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:25 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Quite literally anything can happen here.
  In that case, my money's on Godzilla.
3. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes although I'd bet money that Shelby Conklin is going to discover how unpleasant the Streisand Effect can be. She will probably now be known as the revenge porn woman.
4. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by kruach+aum · 2014-07-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not anything. Magic won't become real, even if a Texas court decrees it.
5. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  She's probably mad because server logs showed that no one wanted to download nude pictures of her.
6. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by GameboyRMH · 2014-07-09 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  They might take that as a challenge. North Carolina made global warming illegal after all.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
7. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by NotDrWho · 2014-07-09 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I can't wait for the confusion when the judge orders that Tor be executed.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
8. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by l0ungeb0y · 2014-07-09 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder if they'll issue exhumation orders for Tor Johnson so the can carry out the execution...
9. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, she is doing it wrong. The nobility of her intent does not excuse the harm caused by the ignorant execution thereof.
10. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anon-Admin · 2014-07-09 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus can't file an Amicus brief.
  He is an illegal alien. :P
11. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Except that it's really nonsensical to think Tor is her attacker. She may as well sue cable manufacturers who made cables through which her photos were downloaded. Or sue Intel for creating CPUs. Or sue Microsoft because some downloaders of the photos are running Windows. Etc.
  It would be like a rape victim suing the company who manufactured the rapist's shoes. At best it's irrational/crazy and any competent ethical legal advisor should tell her not to do it; at worst it's a cynical ploy to gain money or publicity.
12. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Which is a pity. I am seeing a lot of terrible comments lobbed at this woman and people giving a free pass to whoever obtained her images and the site for hosting them.
  Nobody's "giving a free pass" to the revenge porn site. We're just not talking about it, because the revenge porn people, in this particular case, aren't the ones making a public ass of themselves. "This woman" is, and thus, shall be the subject of our collective ridicule.
  In that, hey, how sad is it that she's making herself look worse than a revenge porn site?
  
  Yeah it was stupid of her to name Tor as a defendant, but that can be explained by her simply not being part of the tech culture and thus not really aware of how things go together. Keep in mind she is only a student.
  Yea - a law student. Who apparently doesn't actually understand the law. Again, not helping her own case here, both literally and metaphorically.
  
  But people seem to be focusing on just that, which is pretty much just victim blaming.
  No, suing Tor because "people use tor for porn" is victim blaming. This is pure mocking of stupidity and lack of common sense.
  
  It is the same crap people pull on rape victims all the time, finding some way to socially punish them for trying to bring consequences for their attacker's actions.
  You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
13. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The point is she's not trying to bring consequence for her attacker's actions, you colossal moron, she's lashing out at tangentially related parties. We're not "giving a free pass" to the revenge porn scum - that guy simply doesn't even enter the current discussion, which is about her suing Tor.
  It's like suing Ford Motors because a drunk on a Prius hit you (and when people say "are you dumb?", a white knight jumps in to cry "But why are you giving drunk drivers a free pass?!?!?!")
14. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-07-09 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
  All the internets sir. You win them.
15. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by NotDrWho · 2014-07-09 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  which is pretty much just victim blaming.
  And she's just as misguided for blaming the platform. It seems to me like the real person she should be suing here is the person who (presumably illegally) stole or leaked the photos in the first place. Anything else is just grandstanding, and she must know it (unless you're presuming that she's so profoundly stupid that she just can't understand how the technology works).
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
16. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody's "giving a free pass" to the revenge porn site. We're just not talking about it, because the revenge porn people, in this particular case, aren't the ones making a public ass of themselves. "This woman" is, and thus, shall be the subject of our collective ridicule.
  In that, hey, how sad is it that she's making herself look worse than a revenge porn site?
  Read around a bit more. There are quite a few posts here that are putting all the blame on her
  I've read plenty to know that even if a margin of the population here are doing that, you're still wrong to assume that's the general tone, as it appears you are doing.
  
  Yea - a law student. Who apparently doesn't actually understand the law. Again, not helping her own case here, both literally and metaphorically.
  No, she does not understand Tor, which is different then not understanding the law. Going after companies who seem to be aiding in crime or advertising services that make criminal activity easier or undetectable is well within the law. This is why you can go after companies that say sell devices for getting free cable.
  She doesn't understand a thing, so she sues it. That indicates a piss-poor understanding of Western legal practices. A good law student would have done a tiny bit of research before going all sue-happy. Hell, a halfway intelligent person in general would do that. Only morons sue what they fail to understand.
  
  You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
  Ah yes, the old 'it is not as bad as rape so it is ok' argument.
  Well, since I never said that, fuck you.
  What I said is that when douchebags compare every-fucking-thing to rape, it desensitizes the public to the concept, which does harm to rape victims by marginalizing their suffering. Just because it happens to a woman doesn't make it rape, and if you disagree, go down to your local battered women shelter and ask them what they think about it. I'd recommend you wear a cup.
  
  So how bad does something have to be before victim blaming is a problem?
  
  You perceiving something one way does not make it so. As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim. We're blaming her for trying to resolve the situation in what is one of the most dumbass ways possible.
  
  As someone who is also close to multiple victims of violent rape, I take offense at your attitude that anything not as bad does not count since it trivializes all other forms of crimes related to sex. Which also makes it easier to trivialize rape.
  Yea, keep intentionally or ignorantly misinterpreting my words and meaning. That'll show me.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
17. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by quantaman · 2014-07-09 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes although I'd bet money that Shelby Conklin is going to discover how unpleasant the Streisand Effect can be. She will probably now be known as the revenge porn woman.
  I don't agree with her suing Tor but I disagree that this is necessarily an instance of the Streisand Effect.
  Not taking action would be succumbing to a form of the heckler's veto. I suspect in a lot of cases they start out trying to get rid of the info and most stop when it becomes obvious they'll only make it more public. But in a case like this she might be willing to face the publicity because she thinks seeking justice is more important than giving up.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
18. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Streisand Effect will fix that.
  Probably already has.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
19. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Theaetetus · 2014-07-09 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim.
  There's an entire thread titled "Why yes, we should blame the victim here", with the root post rated +5 Insightful. Yeah, people are blaming her.
  But quick, respond with a No True Slashdotter about how those are fringe elements and marginal and don't represent the views of a large portion of Slashdot.
20. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by blue+trane · 2014-07-09 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't people use Tor for perfectly legal things like making it more difficult for an irc op to ban you.
21. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim.
  There's an entire thread titled "Why yes, we should blame the victim here", with the root post rated +5 Insightful. Yeah, people are blaming her.
  Oh, well, and since we all know that a name is always 100% accurate and tells us everything...
  Did you actually read the thread, or just the headline and thought "oh, that must support my position?" Because I read it, and some of them make a very good point regarding the context of this particular situation.
  
  But quick, respond with a No True Slashdotter about how those are fringe elements and marginal and don't represent the views of a large portion of Slashdot.
  Nah, I'll leave the strawmen and other forms of fallacious thinking to you, since you're so much better at it than I am.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
22. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Theaetetus · 2014-07-09 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim.
  There's an entire thread titled "Why yes, we should blame the victim here", with the root post rated +5 Insightful. Yeah, people are blaming her.
  Oh, well, and since we all know that a name is always 100% accurate and tells us everything...
  Did you actually read the thread, or just the headline and thought "oh, that must support my position?" Because I read it, and some of them make a very good point regarding the context of this particular situation.
  So, you're endorsing the following?
  
  Don't want your nudes to end up in public? Don't take nudes that you wouldn't want the public to see. Then you can be a true victim. The whole concept of "revenge porn," insofar as it applies to nudes and porn freely made and disseminated, is ever so much "I want my freedom.... but I don't want my choices to have consequences of which I don't approve."
  We have a term for that behavior. It's called behaving like a child.
  Is this one of those "very good points"? Because it sure as hell looks like blaming her for becoming a victim, something you claimed wasn't happening.
23. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by JeffAtl · 2014-07-09 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  Lawyers cost money. The Tor Foundation will have to spend a lot of money defending this - even if they're successful. That's plenty of harm right there.
  If you want more harm, you could consider the chilling effect that this will have on other foundations or projects.
24. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by Neil+Boekend · 2014-07-09 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Who are they going to sue once it turns out that it is happening anyway?
  Everybody with a SUV? Every coal power plant?
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
25. Re:Pretty sure this won't work by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-10 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't figure it out for yourself, there's nothing I can do to help you.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Author of Excel to be sued next by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:12 · Score: 3, Funny

In breaking news, Microsoft will be sued by the state of New York for authoring and distributing the malicious software called Excel. Investors on Wall Street have used this nefarious software to destroy the world economy while raking in billions of dollars for themselves.
1. Re:Author of Excel to be sued next by PIBM · 2014-07-09 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  What if she was trying to get coverage to promote her new incoming carreer ? Exactly what she was asking for while trolling us all.
2. Re:Author of Excel to be sued next by jythie · 2014-07-09 07:21 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Ah the Streisand effect, the ethical system were mobs can claim it is the person's own fault for daring to take legal action against something they like.
Better add DARPA and Jon Postel as codefendants by tlambert · 2014-07-09 06:15 · Score: 2

Better add DARPA and Jon Postel as codefendants. I hear they came up with this thing called TCP/IP, which aids and abets people like Tor putting together anonymous networks in the first place; it's a clear case of collusion...
Bonus Points: I hear DARPA has deep pockets...
1. Re:Better add DARPA and Jon Postel as codefendants by ShaunC · 2014-07-09 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Double bonus points, Jon died in 1998; if they can get to him, maybe we can sue Walt Disney and Sonny Bono for fucking up our copyright situation so badly.
  
  --
  Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Streisand effect by johanw · 2014-07-09 06:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm looking at her pictures right now. Unfortunately Pinkmeth is SLOW right now. Might have something to do with all the fuzz about it. :-)
1. Re:Streisand effect by Bigbutt · 2014-07-09 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  What, no links? Bastard. I hadn't heard of this site until I got to Slashdot. Bookmarked for later review.
  [John]
  
  --
  Shit better not happen!
2. Re:Streisand effect by Ardyvee · 2014-07-09 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  More than be mad you didn't post links, I'm surprised that you didn't post under Anonymous Coward (even if you claim is untrue).
  
  --
  I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
3. Re:Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  https://pinkmethuylnenlz.tor2web.blutmagie.de/us/tx/denton/shelby-nicole-conklin/
4. Re:Streisand effect by Zynder · 2014-07-09 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Google "Shelby Conklin tumblr" and it'll be the first link. I was not impressed btw. Too damned much makeup and one boob points to the sky while the other hangs low. Not that I'd throw her out of bed mind you. I am a nerd afterall!
Gun Argument by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

So if they go after Tor for a service someone else provided using Tor, isn't that like going after gun manufacturers for the murders their products help commit? Not trying to start a flame war or anything but this seems kinda close to that notion to me. I'd have a really good laugh if Texas set some legal standard for going after gun manufacturers in the US with this.
1. Re:Gun Argument by GameboyRMH · 2014-07-09 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, it seems pretty close to that. Any lawyers want to comment? This could be entertaining :D
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:Gun Argument by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  So if they go after Tor for a service someone else provided using Tor, isn't that like going after gun manufacturers for the murders their products help commit?
  Yea, kinda.
  
  Not trying to start a flame war... I'd have a really good laugh if Texas set some legal standard for going after gun manufacturers in the US with this.
  So much for not trying to start a flame war.
  Anyway, the precedent is already set, at least in terms of firearms manufacturers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
  Short answer, no, you can't sue them for what people do with their products.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I don't think she has a case against tor by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 06:18 · Score: 1

I don't think she has a case against tor at all because its already been ruled ISPs cannot nor even web sites cant be held responsible for what's its users do or upload. I can be wrong though as im not a lawyer, just recollecting what I've already read in the news. But the web site \owner and its users who uploaded are in sit deep trouble. Don't be a dick just delete the images you know you never had permission to broadcast.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
1. Re:I don't think she has a case against tor by Gaygirlie · 2014-07-09 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think she has a case against tor at all because its already been ruled ISPs cannot nor even web sites cant be held responsible for what's its users do or upload.
  Tor isn't an ISP. Tor is both the network consisting of individual users and the actual software that enables the connection to the network, but it is *not* an Internet service provider, it does not enable you to connect to the Internet nor does it charge you anything.
2. Re:I don't think she has a case against tor by Tharkkun · 2014-07-09 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think she has a case against tor at all because its already been ruled ISPs cannot nor even web sites cant be held responsible for what's its users do or upload. I can be wrong though as im not a lawyer, just recollecting what I've already read in the news. But the web site \owner and its users who uploaded are in sit deep trouble. Don't be a dick just delete the images you know you never had permission to broadcast.
  ISP's can be held responsible if they refuse to cancel service for people involved in criminal activity. But this lady needs to go after the person running the TOR, not TOR itself.
3. Re:I don't think she has a case against tor by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I know tor isn't a ISP that was a example. I also said web sites too at any rate same thing really she going to sue crypto software makers if they use that to upload the images or to store the images? Her issue is with the assholes who made and run the web site and the assholes who uploaded the images not Tor.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
4. Re:I don't think she has a case against tor by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I know that too.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
5. Re:I don't think she has a case against tor by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  You would think that was a no brainer or do collage kids not get instructions from a Professor or Professors helpers? Why do you think she got so much bad advice about Tor from a collage professor of LAW?? I have read Professor assistant do more teaching then the Actual Professors do over the years. Maybe because TOR was never actually sued and tested in court? makes no since to me.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
Moral of the story by phishen · 2014-07-09 06:18 · Score: 2

In the age of the internet, don't take nude pics.
1. Re:Moral of the story by Ukab+the+Great · 2014-07-09 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Especially when you are majoring in criminal justice, a field known for having the policy that any bit of dirt found on you can and will be used by someone who wants to hurt you with it.
2. Re:Moral of the story by GameboyRMH · 2014-07-09 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...unless you're good looking enough to make a career out of it.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3. Re:Moral of the story by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  No its don't share/give away what you have no right to share/giveaway with others
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
4. Re:Moral of the story by jythie · 2014-07-09 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ah yes, it is not the boyfriend's fault, he has no control over his actions.
  
  What is it with people wanting the person who actually did something crapy to not have any consequences? Well, at least when women are the victims and something like sex is involved.
5. Re:Moral of the story by spire3661 · 2014-07-09 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you are going to take nude pics, know how to handle data properly and securely. DONT take them with a device that is connected to the internet.
  
  --
  Good-bye
6. Re:Moral of the story by rogoshen1 · 2014-07-09 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  In this hypothetical, it's douchey to send the pics out. But is that illegal? If you send someone an email is there some kind of implicit legal agreement to delete, or not distribute? Or are embarrassing or indecent pictures special in this regard? -- Aside from common decency and decorum, which shouldn't be legal constructs. Clearly things like correspondence between lawyers/doctors or business concerns etc are a special case.. i'm specifically referring to two private parties.
  Pretend this was a ranty, angry email or a love-letter. If he then published it on some site, or forwarded it to someone else -- would that constitute the outrage?
  What this seems like to me is basically suing over revealing something told in confidence. And instead of just a few people checking out pictures on a no-name website, now millions of people will get to see them. Awesome.
7. Re:Moral of the story by Fjandr · 2014-07-09 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  The pictures were taken by her. They're selfies.
8. Re:Moral of the story by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you are going to take nude pics, know how to handle data properly and securely. DONT take them with a device that is connected to the internet.
  Polaroids and VHS, baby :)
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
9. Re:Moral of the story by argmanah · 2014-07-09 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the same as re-telling a secret. You have an intellectual property interest in your own likeness. Whether you agree or disagree with whether that "should" be the case, unless the pictures were taken in public, or she waived her rights for the distribution of those images, she has a cause of action against the person who distributed them without her permission.
  
  Look at it this way. In the most straightforward case, if you sneak into someone's house and take a picture of them when they're naked, clearly the fact that you own the camera doesn't mean you own the right to distribute such a picture. The person whose picture is being taken didn't consent. Now, let's take a case where the person consents to the picture. Does that consent to have a picture being taken implicitly grant the right to distribute those pictures? At a minimum, it would depend on the facts. A picture taken of someone posing for a picture in front of a fancy restaurant with a bunch of friends, you could argue the right to redistribute was implied in that consent, and certainly it's not really practical to get a signed consent form of all the people in the picture. Nude photos taken in a private bedroom? You can be damned sure that consent to have the picture taken did not carry with it the right to redistribute unless that was explicit (and as the person doing the redistribution you would probably need it to be in writing to cover your ass).
  
  --
  Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
10. Re:Moral of the story by strikethree · 2014-07-10 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, it is not the boyfriend's fault, he has no control over his actions.
  Huh? It is ENTIRELY her boyfriend's fault. He tied her up, pulled off all of her clothes and forced her at gunpoint to pose for those pictures. She has no responsiblity at all in this situation.
  See how stupid it looks to try and shoehorn in blame games where they do not belong?
  Yes, the boyfriend who shared those pics is a dick. Criminal? I am not a lawyer, but definitely a dick. Guess what? He would have never had those pics if she did not consent to taking them or giving them to him. That implies that she has a part to play in this too. Is defining the parts such a problem for you or is everything a crime against women who are always just helpless victims and deserve all of your stuff when they decide to leave you after a relationship?
  Rock on.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Law student trying to make a name for herself by FuzzNugget · 2014-07-09 06:22 · Score: 2

Looking like an idiot is not the way to do it
1. Re:Law student trying to make a name for herself by drainbramage · 2014-07-09 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  History says otherwise, it sure worked for sandra fluke.
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
2. Re:Law student trying to make a name for herself by FuzzNugget · 2014-07-09 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh, *now* it all makes sense.
Insert obligatory Streisand Effect joke here... by Venotar · 2014-07-09 06:22 · Score: 1

Because, seriously, how frequently does this lesson have to be retaught?
"Don't be ridiculous." --Balki by TheDarkener · 2014-07-09 06:25 · Score: 2

Was "revenge porn" non-existant before Tor? I don't see how this (or any other similar) case has any merit whatsoever. Sue the one(s) who masterminded the criminal act(s). I mean, I know I'm preaching to the choir here... but it's like suing AT&T for providing phone lines to someone who recorded phone sex conversations with their spouse and released them after they split up. It's like suing Sony for providing the video camera to Paris Hilton. Lame, lame lame. Ignorant, shortsighted, lame.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
1. Re:"Don't be ridiculous." --Balki by jpvlsmv · 2014-07-09 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Was "revenge porn" non-existant before Tor?
  It was mostly limited to scratching "For a Good Time Call Jenny 867-5309" on the bathroom stall of every local truck stop/gas station.
  And no more defamatory then, either.
2. Re:"Don't be ridiculous." --Balki by neilo_1701D · 2014-07-09 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  It was mostly limited to scratching "For a Good Time Call Jenny 867-5309" on the bathroom stall of every local truck stop/gas station.
  That was you? You bastard; I wasted so many quarters trying get in touch with her as I followed her around the country!
3. Re:"Don't be ridiculous." --Balki by mrbester · 2014-07-09 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  She was never in when I called. Popular girl, that Jenny.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
4. Re:"Don't be ridiculous." --Balki by Neil+Boekend · 2014-07-09 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  Once I found "for a good time, check 127.0.0.1". Dang, the amount of porn I found on that server! And the speeds!
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Sue Earth-Day organizers next by IronOxen · 2014-07-09 06:29 · Score: 1

I was hit with a baseball bat made from wood harvested from a tree that grew from a seedling planted by an earth-day participant. Earth-day organizers conspired to grow trees in an obvious conspiracy that must have included the 7 year-old at a little league game who lost his grip and threw said wooden bat. Sounds like a RICO case to me.
Devil's Advocate by ADRA · 2014-07-09 06:30 · Score: 1

I can't say much about the merit of the case or common sense, but considering radar jammer manufacturers can be held accountable for miss-use (intended abuse of the law) its at least possible that the case will go to trial. The significant note of the case (if it continues) will be if TOR is designed to facilitate breaking the law or if it has enough legal uses to be considered incidental support, like the internet, air, electricity, etc...

--
Bye!
1. Re:Devil's Advocate by CRCulver · 2014-07-09 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  In US law it has long been recognized that private letters between two living people cannot be published without consent. Only a paraphrase can be published. It's perfectly reasonable to hold that this extends to private photos taken between two parties on the understanding that these will stay published. Case law hasn't been settled yet, and state legislatures are only beginning to take up the matter, so it's not so simple as you make it out to be.
2. Re:Devil's Advocate by CreatureComfort · 2014-07-09 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, since TOR was developed by DARPA, and still actively funded by the Department of Defense, I would guess it will be trivial to show that it has significant legal uses.
  
  --
  "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
  Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
3. Re:Devil's Advocate by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  In US law it has long been recognized that private letters between two living people cannot be published without consent.
  Consent from one party, or both?
  I'd like to see that precedent cited.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Devil's Advocate by Zynder · 2014-07-09 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  What possible legal use could a radar jammer be good for?
Why yes, we should blame the victim here by MikeRT · 2014-07-09 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't want your nudes to end up in public? Don't take nudes that you wouldn't want the public to see. Then you can be a true victim. The whole concept of "revenge porn," insofar as it applies to nudes and porn freely made and disseminated, is ever so much "I want my freedom.... but I don't want my choices to have consequences of which I don't approve."
We have a term for that behavior. It's called behaving like a child.
1. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by ADRA · 2014-07-09 06:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Laws exist in a large part to protect the dumb, naive, incapable, or ignorant individuals in our population. Choose your insult and blame society for being too liberal supportive of any group and you can say the same thing.
  
  --
  Bye!
2. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seriously? Under what logic is it okay to publicly disseminate, often for the express purpose of humiliation, someone else's private photographs whether obtained illegally, surreptitiously, or shared in confidence with you?
  She's not being a child. She's taking a stand against someone else's repugnant behavior.
3. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Falos · 2014-07-09 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  The law needs to protect the incapables who can't secure information themselves physically (eg safe, vault) or digitally. The law doesn't need to protect (it can't) those who think distributed information, that is, data in the wild can be owned or controlled. Either it's a secret or it's "compromised", like it has been since the beginning of human communication - it's just faster now. We don't need more cases of plebs getting convicted over public-facing data, over servers with no authentication or credentials, over "private" data that shows up in a GOOGLE SEARCH. I didn't RTFA though; "Photographs she owned" is ambiguous.
4. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Pope · 2014-07-09 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  More like don't put nudes on an online photo sharing service, password-protected or not.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
5. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 07:17 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Ya blame the victim that's what a real man does......
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
6. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by ultranova · 2014-07-09 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  The whole concept of "revenge porn," insofar as it applies to nudes and porn freely made and disseminated, is ever so much "I want my freedom.... but I don't want my choices to have consequences of which I don't approve."
  
  Does this only apply to revenge porn, or would you also blame someone who gets mugged for being out after dark?
  
  We have a term for that behavior. It's called behaving like a child.
  
  No, that's just you attempting to use rhetoric to dismiss a position without actually analysing it.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
7. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by tlhIngan · 2014-07-09 07:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Don't want your nudes to end up in public? Don't take nudes that you wouldn't want the public to see. Then you can be a true victim. The whole concept of "revenge porn," insofar as it applies to nudes and porn freely made and disseminated, is ever so much "I want my freedom.... but I don't want my choices to have consequences of which I don't approve."
  We have a term for that behavior. It's called behaving like a child.
  Technically true if she posted the photos on Facebook or something.
  Instead, what happens is she and her boyfriend do stuff like sexting and sharing rather private photos that way. They break up, douchebag boyfriend decides he's innocent and posts those private photos online.
  It's why the German courts I believe say if you do that, you're not only responsible for any damages, but also for taking it down (ha, ha) since those photos were not posted with permission.
  Basically, every teenager with a cellphone and a camera is vulnerable to this (I think the numbers were what, 60% of all texts and other messages were of a sexual nature?).
  It really is a modern technology thing - if you took nudie pictures of yourself, you had to get them developed, etc., and you mailed them off. If your ex-boyfriend wanted to embarrass you with them, it would take a lot of work to get them published widely. These days, digital photos make it easy to share with your friends, and ex-friends.
8. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by jythie · 2014-07-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences? Why is it people who are actively crappy to others do not have this same mantra associated with them?
  
  Oh yeah, freedom is for men, but women need to guard themselves and not cause trouble. Malicious acts are fine as long as you can slut shame the other person into silence.
9. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by assertation · 2014-07-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  That is like telling someone
  "Don't want to be in a car accident? Quit your job and never leave your home."
10. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by compro01 · 2014-07-09 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  She's taking a stand against someone else's repugnant behavior.
  By suing what appears to be everyone except that someone else?
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
11. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by IronOxen · 2014-07-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences? Why is it people who are actively crappy to others do not have this same mantra associated with them?
  
  Because the actively crappy people often don't have enough cash or earning potential to make it worth suing them.
12. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Fjandr · 2014-07-09 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Many victims actually do share part of the responsibility for what happens to them. In some cases, they bear most of the responsibility. It's illegal to stomp the crap out of someone who didn't physically attack you, but don't tell me that someone walking into a Hell's Angels bar and spitting on the bartender bears no responsibility for being beaten half to death. Nobody is trying to absolve the perpetrator of responsibility, but she bears at least some of it for taking nude pictures of herself and posting them online, protected or not.
13. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Fjandr · 2014-07-09 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Don't want stuff stolen out of your vehicle? Don't leave it in plain view, in an unlocked vehicle in a part of town known for thefts from vehicles. No, she doesn't bear all the responsibility. Yes, she bears some of it.
14. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by BobMcD · 2014-07-09 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences?
  
  I think that's a legitimate TOR angle, actually. In order to leverage the law you need to know where they physically are. TOR hides that, per design.
  There's a case here, folks.
  TOR is inhibiting legal remedies.
15. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences?
  I think that's a legitimate TOR angle, actually. In order to leverage the law you need to know where they physically are. TOR hides that, per design.
  There's a case here, folks.
  No there isn't.
  Balaclavas hide identity, too, but you never see a clothmaker sued when someone robs a bank.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
16. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  She bars NO responsibility because she did take more them normal care to secure the image. Get a brain man, girls don't share images of that nature unless they believe they are in a committed monogamous relationship and then it STILL takes verbal permission to share with others the images. Swingers don't just start swinging because 1 party says they will and you have no say. That's you thinking, in a real relationship it takes COMMUNICATION, verbally agreeing to enter into that kind of relationship. So no your lame example is just that, lame and very selfish. Lets say she took a selfie and send it to her boyfriend, your immature thinking its ok to share why? why the hell knows... Did she say it was ok to share? where did it enter your mind its ok to give a personal image made just for YOU to others. get out of the basement dude get a real GF.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
17. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by david_thornley · 2014-07-09 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  In what way is TOR preventing finding the perp? If we had a record of each and every hop, we'd trace back to an IP address. That's not identification or location.
  Moreover, the site seems to have a domain name, so check the registries.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
18. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Lehk228 · 2014-07-09 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  it's hilarious that you think we care about your social justice feminist shit.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
19. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by thunderclap · 2014-07-09 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  Can we all stop being idiots? Look unless she took those pics with an actual non internet connected camera, she gave implicit permission to post them by taking them with an internet enabled device. People ARE going to Hack your shizz. If you have sensitive info on it, it is your fault that you left it there as well as it is their fault for stealing it. This is today; you don't leave money in an open box on front porch expecting it to remain unmolested. You don't leave your front door unlocked. You don't leave the car keys in the ignition. You don't leave your packages in plain sight at a mall. You don't take pictures of yourself naked for any reason and leave them on an unsecured device and expect it to remain there untouched. Revenge porn is nasty business. It preys on the foolish and ignorant, heartbroken bitches who fuck over men for foolish reasons as well as kind, beatiful souls who were brutalized by dominating thugs mascaraing as men. Its not going away. Anymore than swinging, BDSM, golden showers, chubby chasing, brazzers, vivid, redtube etc are. Yes you have a right to control your images. However ignorance of rule 34 is no excuse. So using common sense says that if you are a prude and don't want the internet to see your quarter sized areolas and shaved puss then delete them. Just like you don't share your bank password, or your social security number online. This is no different. We need to quit treating is a such. No one stole her identity. Had she left it alone it would have faded into nothing. Her insisting on retribution is what is destroying her. Its a good thing. We don't need any more lawyers like her. They tend to go work for places like Prenda.
20. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Your.Master · 2014-07-09 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  He's not saying taking pictures is repugnant. It's republishing them not only without her consent, not only *against* her express wishes, but specifically to humiliate her and make her angry.
  Yes, Tor is the wrong target for punishment (though I'm unclear on whether she was seeking punitive damages from Tor, or just suing them to try to get them to help de-anonymize things).
  You, however, are actively participating in the problem, by re-posting those links to slashdot. I'm not saying your hands should be chopped off or anything ridiculous, but I am saying that your behaviour is repugnant.
21. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Your.Master · 2014-07-09 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Look unless she took those pics with an actual non internet connected camera, she gave implicit permission to post them by taking them with an internet enabled device.
  No she didn't. What a bizarre assertion.
  
  People ARE going to Hack your shizz.
  What? As far as I can tell, this wasn't hacked. And even if it was...that's the opposite of permission.
  
  This is today; you don't leave money in an open box on front porch expecting it to remain unmolested. You don't leave your front door unlocked. You don't leave the car keys in the ignition. You don't leave your packages in plain sight at a mall. You don't take pictures of yourself naked for any reason and leave them on an unsecured device and expect it to remain there untouched.
  You realize people taking advantage of all the other things you mentioned are crimes that you can pursue in courts and nobody will blame you? In fact, you realize that if somebody steals your car, even when you left the keys in the ignition, or breaks into your house through an unlocked door, and you *don't* follow up on it with the authorities, that's viewed with suspicion?
  (For that matter, I don't think my parents even have a front door lock, and I know my dad leaves the keys in the car -- my mom doesn't mostly so that she can click the button to find her car in the parking lot. Not everybody lives in fear -- to be fair, lots of people live in places where the fear is warranted. And I do lock my doors, living in a more heavily populated area. And none of us would leave a package unattended in a mall).
  It's not the insistence on retribution that's the problem here. It's the fact that it was directed at the wrong target. Tor didn't have anything to do with this any more than the mall had anything to do with your package, left in plain sight, being stolen. Or a privately-owned highway that they used to drive your car away, after you left the keys in the car.
22. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by ahaweb · 2014-07-10 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  You're making a political argument, to which there are political counter-arguments.
23. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Fjandr · 2014-07-20 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  I was speaking in general. Note that there is no reference to her in my comment. I was simply pointing out that "blaming the victim" is not always illogical.
  It's interesting that you attack me, rather than the point I was making. You make assumption after assumption, all based on an erroneous conclusion. Sad, really.
24. Re:Why yes, we should blame the victim here by Stan92057 · 2014-07-21 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Quote "I was speaking in general" End Quote
  100% false,
  Quote " but she bears at least some of it for taking nude pictures of herself and posting them online, protected or not. "End Quote"
  There's My proof your 100% wrong, your own words. I stand by all my words dude 100% of them
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
Hey Shelby Conklin... by fallen1 · 2014-07-09 06:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

THANKS for letting me know there are nude photos of you on the internet -- and where to find them! YOU are a font of information and those of us who never even knew this site existed are thankful you are too stupid to realize you just made yourself even more of a search topic. And your lawsuit will fail.
Congrats! :)

--
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
1. Re:Hey Shelby Conklin... by Stan92057 · 2014-07-09 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Ya your a real man....
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
2. Re:Hey Shelby Conklin... by Headrick · 2014-07-09 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know this isn't exactly what she wants to happen?
except that it didnt. by nimbius · 2014-07-09 06:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Tor isnt a service, its a technology and accompanying data protocol. There is no corporate entity or backer that "crontrols" the network or if there were, the federal government would have beaten this attorney to the punch long ago. Its like trying to sue LUKS deveopers for a hard drive that cant be read by the NSA.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
Re:Pics? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-09 06:39 · Score: 1

Yahoo it yourself you lazy jackass.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
NewYorkCountryLawyer by lbmouse · 2014-07-09 06:39 · Score: 1

Could someone please summon him? I'd like to hear his take on this.
Re:Bill Gates by tbuddy · 2014-07-09 06:56 · Score: 4, Informative

The Joint Photographic Experts Group probably had a hand in this too.
Re:This one will be quick. by qeveren · 2014-07-09 07:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Pretty sure you need a massive lobbying brigade in order to qualify for Safe Harbor protections. :P

--
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2014-07-09 07:11 · Score: 2

Can you sue automakers for car crashes not caused by defect?
Can you sue gun makers for deaths?
Can you sue the financial industry for losses in the market?
Then why the hell is this any different? Hell, sue the fscking NSA for not having told you about it and stopped it.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Hmmm ... by yeshuawatso · 2014-07-09 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Can you sue automakers for car crashes not caused by defect?
  Yes.
  
  Can you sue gun makers for deaths?
  Yes.
  
  Can you sue the financial industry for losses in the market?
  Again, Yes.
  
  Then why the hell is this any different?
  It's not. Nothing is stopping you from suing anyone for anything, you just need to be prepared to pay for a lot of legal fees as your cases get dismissed left and right. This is America and we can sue anyone we damn well please for any frivolous reason. You just can't always win. The only requirement for a tort is a civil wrongdoing, intentional or unintentional, and you, plaintiff, have to achieve the preponderance of the evidence.
  
  Hell, sue the f[u]cking NSA for not having told you about it and stopped it.
  Give her time, she's working on including them for failing to the act against the National security that is her mediocre body (I assume, I haven't seen the pics).
2. Re:Hmmm ... by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Can you sue automakers for car crashes not caused by defect?
  Yes.
  
  Can you sue gun makers for deaths?
  Yes.
  
  Can you sue the financial industry for losses in the market?
  Again, Yes.
  Citation, citation, citation.
  Here, I'll get one for you:
  Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act:
  
  The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible
  One down...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re: Hmmm ... by yeshuawatso · 2014-07-09 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's not my point. My point is you can sue anyone but that doesn't mean your case is valid. For instance, if I filed suit against the manufacture of a firearm for negligence since someone used their weapon to kill my spouse, the case would be dismissed citing the very law you linked if I don't prove that the weapons company did anything illegal at the motion to dismiss review. I could also be punished for wasting the court's and defendant's time by paying legal fees.
  In other words : whoosh!
4. Re: Hmmm ... by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-10 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Most rational people take the phrase "you can sue..." to mean that you have even a marginal chance of success.
  But, to be fair, OP did fail to specify the situations to a precise enough degree that a pedant wouldn't be able to engage in pedantry about meaning.
  In other words, while you may be technically correct, nobody likes a pedant.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Fedex/UPS/USPS are next by Modern · 2014-07-09 07:14 · Score: 1

Lets distribute these ways and sue. woohoo class action.
Originally developed by ... by PPH · 2014-07-09 07:16 · Score: 2

... DARPA. So why not go after the deep pockets?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
AT&T is next by atheos · 2014-07-09 07:21 · Score: 1

Next up, AT&T is sued over a prank phone call. None of this could have happened if it weren't for those pesky kids, and the phone company!
Re:Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-09 07:27 · Score: 1

So the P is not for Porn?!?
Re:Pics? by FatdogHaiku · 2014-07-09 07:27 · Score: 1

Yahoo it yourself you lazy jackass.
Don't you mean "Bing it"?
In July 2009, Yahoo signed a deal with Microsoft, the result of which was that Yahoo Search would be powered by Bing. This is now in effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search#Search_technology_acquisition

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
She's taking a stand for her own irresponsibility by MikeRT · 2014-07-09 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously? Under what logic is it okay to publicly disseminate, often for the express purpose of humiliation, someone else's private photographs whether obtained illegally, surreptitiously, or shared in confidence with you?
You're missing the point. It's not ok, but it is a highly foreseeable consequence of taking nude photographs, much less disseminating them. You'd have to live under a rock and have a Pollyannaish view of human relations in 2014 to have no idea that this is a common consequence. Most often now, it probably happens because someone believes they are special and they won't fall victim to what so many others in their demographic have suffered. In that sense, it is precisely the sort of behavior one expects of a child because children and adolescents are almost completely incapable of believing "you're not special and it could damn well happen to you too."
Re:This one will be quick. by Sloppy · 2014-07-09 07:40 · Score: 1

How does the Tor Project get safe harbor? They're not an ISP.
In that case, it gets thrown out one step sooner, since they're even less involved than an ISP would be.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Um, so.. by roc97007 · 2014-07-09 07:43 · Score: 1

...why not sue the internet?
Or is that next?
This seems a little like suing a typewriter manufacturer because their product defeats handwriting analysis.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:Um, so.. by Cro+Magnon · 2014-07-09 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  She should at least sue Al Gore, since he invented the damn thing!
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
2. Re:Um, so.. by roc97007 · 2014-07-09 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  She should at least sue Al Gore, since he invented the damn thing!
  Before someone else jumps on this, the actual quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet".
  So, it's "created", not "invented". Pedants will take one to task for getting that wrong.
  But should such a lawsuit ever take place, I'd be in the front row, with popcorn.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:Um, so.. by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-09 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  She should at least sue Al Gore, since he invented the damn thing!
  Before someone else jumps on this, the actual quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet".
  So, it's "created", not "invented". Pedants will take one to task for getting that wrong.
  Yea, about that...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Um, so.. by roc97007 · 2014-07-09 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  She should at least sue Al Gore, since he invented the damn thing!
  Before someone else jumps on this, the actual quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet".
  So, it's "created", not "invented". Pedants will take one to task for getting that wrong.
  Yea, about that...
  Ok, right. I was excoriated once for using "invented", and it drove me to research the quote and the original context, (and it turns out both sides of the argument are partially correct) the content of which I keep along with references in a file called al_gore_invented_the_internet. When the subject comes up (as it still does periodically) I have actual quotes and references on tap. :-)
  Incidentally, I believed at the time that he simply blew his lines in the heat of the moment, and meant to say "I took the initiative in co-authoring legislation that helped create the internet as it is today". Which would have been true and really was a good thing. But Gore has displayed arrogance to such a degree since then that I'm tipping back to "he exaggerated and hoped Blitzer would call him on it".
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
5. Re:Um, so.. by roc97007 · 2014-07-09 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  s/Blitzer would/Blitzer wouldn't/g
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Who's She gonna have Served? by redelm · 2014-07-09 07:57 · Score: 2

... as in "You've Been Served!" Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone over anything. The first problem is finding and getting that person into the Court. For this you need Process Servers to properly serve a Notice of Hearing. Default judgement is only possible with correct service.
TFA didn't mention who she is serving but if she can find anyone, the most they could say is "Yes, I was involved in setting up Tor Long-ago and Far-Away. No possible knowledge or involvement with complaint." And the Judge will excuse them.
Pretty lame of a law-student not-to-know. Most likely a publicity stunt.
Hopefully, tor will file for frivilous lawsuit by WindBourne · 2014-07-09 08:06 · Score: 1

Seriously, it is good that lawsuits are happening. That will change things. For example, if a class action were to happen to target AND MICROSOFT, we would see mass changes in America over this.

BUT, when going after innocent parties, that gets old.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Pics? by anagama · 2014-07-09 08:07 · Score: 2

Hmmm. Have you checked for system updates on your humor chip? Show me one cowboy who hollers "bing!"

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:She's taking a stand for her own irresponsibili by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-07-09 08:47 · Score: 1

You can cross the street without looking both ways and maybe get hit by a car. Oh, sure, you had the right of way. You're still dead, but you had the rogjt of way.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
TEQUILA! by Thud457 · 2014-07-09 08:55 · Score: 4, Funny

There are almost no basements in Texas.
Except the one in the Alamo.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:TEQUILA! by Noah+Haders · 2014-07-09 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  there's no basement in the Alamo http://youtu.be/XuWSK9A_A1M
2. Re:TEQUILA! by geminidomino · 2014-07-10 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Wow... reaching way back for the references now. Well done.
silly biggots by umghhh · 2014-07-09 09:06 · Score: 1

boring pictures - why is this a story in the first place and why assholes that obviously got to pinkmeth because of media noise about the case must post profanities there - I shall never know. People can do with their bodies what they want. If it is in their free time this should never affect their careers or relationships (this of course unless it does not reveal cheating etc). As long as no wrong doing is on the pictures they may have entertainment value but that is it. No reason to get excited. Other that now I am on the NSA terrorists list for using tor. And this is bigger story.
Great now by future+assassin · 2014-07-09 09:08 · Score: 1

I'm gonna waste time trying to find her photo's Daaaaam you Streisand effect

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Re:Pics? by FatdogHaiku · 2014-07-09 09:20 · Score: 1

Here's a group of them. http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/slice/2012/mar/30/little-bit-west-good-idea/
To be fair, the guy top center was actually called "Bing"...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I'm ashamed of you people. by mythosaz · 2014-07-09 09:26 · Score: 1

I thought I knew you people...
This article is hours old, and there's no link to the .onion address of the revenge site.
Who's the victim? by P1h3r1e3d13 · 2014-07-09 09:28 · Score: 1

Poor Tor, it's not their fault people did nasty stuff with their service.
But yesterday, when spammers happened to use NO-IP's free service, that made NO-IP âoeshady.â
Only copyright by sir-gold · 2014-07-09 10:24 · Score: 1

Since she herself created the images in question, and shared them with at least one other person, does this not count as the creation of an artwork for private distribution?
By this standard Pinkmeth (and by extension Tor) are guilty of, at most, copyright infringement.
AT&T too? by ron_ivi · 2014-07-09 10:44 · Score: 1

They supplied the wires for some of that data, didn't they?
NSFW! by ddt · 2014-07-09 12:10 · Score: 1

Hey, folks. Label links NSFW, please. I'm in a nice cafe, and those links weren't cool to open up on a 17" monitor.
1. Re:NSFW! by Ecuador · 2014-07-09 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, then it is not *that* nice a cafe, is it?
  But in any case I think the context made it clear what you should be expecting....
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
There is more to this, from 2012 by Tiger+Smile · 2014-07-09 13:51 · Score: 1

DENTON, Texas (CN) - A "revenge pornography" website gained unauthorized access to nude photographs of a woman and posted them on the Internet, the woman claims in court.
Shelby Conklin sued Verisign, Katz Global Media, and Pinkmeth.com, in Denton County Court.
Pinkmeth is her main target. She claims Tucson-based Katz sold "anonymous hosting" Internet services to PinkMeth, and she wants Verisign to disable the PinkMeth website. ...
http://www.courthousenews.com/...

--
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Paris=lame by Zynder · 2014-07-09 14:22 · Score: 1

I wish someone would sue Sony over that camera. What a horribly shitty movie. Why is it celebrity sex tapes are always so damned lame? I thought I'd never say this but porn stars really are masters of their craft!
Tor enables bad stuff by jebblue · 2014-07-09 15:27 · Score: 1

Simple subject but it's true. The very people who would be incensed by child pornography seem ironically to be Tor's biggest defenders. You guys need to re-think how important your adult porn is to you and get on the right side.
1. Re:Tor enables bad stuff by slash0r · 2014-07-10 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  What is the right side ?
  Tor is a tool to protect life of freedom fighters in totalitarism, and terrorism aswell.
She probably doesn't know the Streisand effect... by slash0r · 2014-07-10 00:01 · Score: 1

yet...
What's a Southerner's opinion on Westerners? by Xaedalus · 2014-07-10 08:17 · Score: 1

Particularly west of the Mississippi and excluding Californians (Californians: like Floridans except less crazy)?

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.