Slashdot Mirror
'Revenge Porn' Operator Gets 18 Years In Prison
Frosty Piss writes Kevin Christopher Bollaert, who operated a 'revenge porn' web site, was been found guilty in February of six counts of extortion and 21 counts of identity theft. He faced a maximum of 23 years in prison. On Friday, April 3rd, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The extortion charges stem from a second web site he ran that solicited payments of $250 to $350 from people who wanted to have the photographs deleted. Bollaert made about $30,000 on that site.
Autoplaying video should be banned from the interwebs
And yet people who sexually abuse children get less time than that.
18 years... wow. Yes, that he did was morally reprehensible... but he got a sentence longer than many rapists. Obviously the $30K he supposedly pulled in didn't afford good legal assistance.
I realize that it is difficult to achieve a balance in fairness in sentencing but here we have an example of a court getting whacked out. Try and find a single case in which a drunk driver or hit and run driver who has killed someone gets 18 years in jail. Now it is obvious that no one likes to get a couple of hundred bucks ripped out of their wallets such a crime does not come close to killing someone and fleeing the scene. And i know that some people will say it involved more than one victim. But then again big tobacco and big coal kill a lot more than one person every single day and the law allows them to keep right on doing it. Worse yet as tobacco sales fell in the US our tobacco companies exported more and more tobacco to nations in which the population remains completely uneducated and allows children to smoke. The long and short of it is that both our civil and criminal justice systems need a rework from the ground up.
Wow, Senator Al Franken doesn't waste his time, does he!
Me thinks you are overestimating the number of people blackmailed. That's $3 per person (he only made $30k).
You don't have to be successful in blackmail to be convicted of committing it. They said he charged
$250 to $500
To remove people's pictures, so yes there were far fewer than 10,000 people who paid him but there were 10,000+ who he blackmailed.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
High level what what? Her gf convinced her to carry some contraband across the border. She was a drug mule.
Sounds like he blackmailed the wrong people [politicians] and those who paid also had the wrong sort of influence on his business.
I don't willingly breathe coal combustion products, and I don't willingly breathe cigarette smoke. The same is true for many other people.
It is long past time we went nuclear, solar, etc. for power. Burning stuff that continuously pollutes the atmosphere is not the best choice available. It's just what the politicians working on behalf of petroleum profiteers work to keep SOP (congress: 14% approval rate, 94% re-election rate -- sigh.)
As for cigarettes, they should be smoked only where those that consent to cigarette smoke in their air hang out. Unlike most other forms of personal consumption, smoking has well documented pernicious third-party effects.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They'll do it for $300 per photo, but there's no guarantee they wont be reposted a day later.
"Sitting behind a computer, committing what is essentially a cowardly and criminal act will not shield predators from the law or jail." Harris said. "We will continue to be vigilant and investigate and prosecute those who commit these deplorable acts." He's coming after the AC's next!
She was convicted when caught. You think that was the only time, given her girlfriend was directly working for a druglord?
Also, what about her money laundering charges? Hmm?
Please help metamoderate.
His problem was extorting such a small sum. Minor criminals always receive harsh punishments. On the other hand if you steal billions and nearly crash the entire economy you get off scott free. Next time think bigger.
It almost certainly caused physical harm.
It's both. Neither one is an excuse for the other.
Nor is comparing punishment times useful, because that assumes one side of the comparison is correct. That has to be demonstrated first, and no one has managed that (nor, under the current legal system, have I any confidence that it could even be managed.)
Harm was done. Society is not innocent in the matter. While the individual who took the act needs reform, so does society. Work towards and/or call for both. Don't ignore the one presuming the other is irrelevant.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So he gets more time that rape or murder 2?
Yes, but a lot less time than someone who committed 10,000 rapes or murders would have.
I wonder how many of these SJW manginas here cheering this bullshit were also cheering when Hulk Hogan had secret video of him having sex taken without his permission and, again without his permission or consent, had it splattered all over the web?
I didn't cheer about that. Did anyone else cheer about that?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
As the person you responded to pointed out, we have an extreme imbalance in US courts dishing out sentencing. Politicians convicted of pretty much any charge get no jail time, where the laymen receive up to life in prison for identical charges. I am of course referring to retired General Petraeus who provided classified information to his girlfriend, while Bradley Manning is spending LIFE in prison for doing the same thing. The difference was in the people, not the crime..
Face the facts here, the courts wanted to make an "example" of this guy. That is called retribution, it is not called Justice.
Yeah, I agree that the guy did some slimy crap just to make a few bucks. That said, this sentence ensures the he will never be rehabilitated, ever. This is a demonstration of a failed system of justice, nothing more.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How so?
Speak for yourself. They are not my elected representatives. There isn't anyone in congressional office I voted for. My opinion, input, and concerns are not represented directly or indirectly, fractionally or otherwise, by any currently sitting politician. The relationship to me of the legislature's work product in these particular matters is purely coercive.
Sure. But that's not really what's at issue here, as it assumes that good choices will be made and bad choices will not, the nature of those choices being based upon the majority's indirect selection of quality representatives.
Sounds good. But the reality is that the majority of the voting public have made extremely poor choices in selecting legislators, who in turn have made (many) extremely poor choices in their name. This is precisely why the massively polluting carbon-based energy infrastructure -- coal, petroleum -- remains largely still in place.
What would demonstrate the kind of system where your observation would be on point is a situation where the majority of the voting public made good choices, and the representatives then made good choices for them.
As it stands now, we have legislators making decisions for the nation based on principles toxic to the nation, and a largely uninformed and complacent voting public that keeps those legislators in place doing so. There's no need for "haters" to make poor choices; congress already has that well in hand.
Yep, sure do.
You think nuclear power is "evil." It isn't. You've been a victim of pro-petroleum propaganda, directly or otherwise. Nuclear power is extremely low risk, extremely low-pollution, and efficient. Fun fact: Coal plants produce more radioactive pollutants than do nuclear power plants by a factor of about one hundred. 'Nuther fun fact: Nuclear power plants produce far more energy than do coal or petroleum technology plants. Cool, eh?
You think solar panels kill birds. They don't. Well, unless you picked up a solar panel and somehow managed to hit the bird with it. Perhaps you're thinking of windmills. Or cats. Or human hunters.
You think solar panels "ruin desert habitat." They don't. The habitat is still right there underneath and around the panels. As well as newly provided shade.
You have also expressed more concern about scenery in your post than you have about people's actual health and welfare.
It appears you've made your position clear. Would you care to clarify and/or further expound on your statements?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My electricity is strictly hydro.
Second-hand smoke.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Also found in civilized countries: people who read enough of article or are otherwise familiar enough with the case to realize that this wasn't about one single case of extortion.
Yes, it was exactly 1 case of extortion. It happened to involve multiple people, but it was a single web site and single person doing the work. When a drug dealer is busted, why don't they charge him with 99 counts of selling drugs? Because the crime is selling drugs, and low and behold there are multiple victims. Another fine analogy, why is a bank robber charged once instead of once for every customer of the bank? Because that would be something other than justice.
You sir, or madam, have been duped into believing bullshit that people want you to think without ever evaluating the theory of justice (or perhaps you forgot).
When it comes to physical harm surely we have individual counts filed, but these are not crimes of the same nature. In fact the peanuts this guy stole compared to, oh... I don't know.. pick a bank CEO that embezzled billions of dollars and never even saw a charge means that the charges are frivolous to the point of lunacy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes, facts like Manning was not sentenced to LIFE in prison, but for 35 years. And facts like Manning leaked far more documents than Petraeus did. And facts like her name is Chelsea Manning.
Yes, Petraeus's sentence was a joke. But when you're going to be harping on "facts", you kinda need to get yours correct.
As for this fine gentleman who just got sentenced, he's going to serve about 15 hours per victim (unless he gets paroled or other early release). Less than a day per crime doesn't seem unreasonable. If anything, it's rather light for extortion.
There are killers that gets away with less
- Did any of his victims (or customers) remedy their "social inconvenience" via suicide? - What is a "killer", do spiders count?
Using the phrase "social inconvenience" to describe extortion via sexual humiliation shows that you don't even recognise sexual abuse when it's right under your nose, let alone begin to understand it. Educate yourself on the human mind, you have one of your own, right? I suggest starting with some of the talks from Ruby Wax on YT
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Face the facts here, the courts wanted to make an "example" of this guy. That is called retribution, it is not called Justice.
The fact that there is no justice in the justice system doesn't mean that this case of thousands of extortions was improperly sentenced.
Yeah, I agree that the guy did some slimy crap just to make a few bucks. That said, this sentence ensures the he will never be rehabilitated, ever. This is a demonstration of a failed system of justice, nothing more.
Yeah, some guy that does slimy stuff for a few bucks. I could see someone who kidnaps 8 year olds and sells them into slavery having the same thing said about them. Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean that others share your opinion.
Learn to love Alaska
Putting unauthorized porn of unwilling people on the internet, and then charging them money to remove it? What a scumbag. They're going to have a lot of fun with him in jail.
Nothing illegal about putting pictures of people on the internet. Absolutely 100% legal if they had been street photos. I didn't read this ruling, but I suspect he may not have been convicted if he hadn't charged for removal.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Did anyone else cheer about that?
Did anyone actually know about it? Did it make it out of noise bubble from all of the other amateur sex tapes coming out around that time? Basically, if you've ever been naked and you're a celebrity, it's going to come out. It goes with the territory of being a celebrity, Taylor Swift's whining about that notwithstanding. Bottom line, be a celebrity, be seen naked. Just as it's harder to claim defamation when one is a celebrity, it's harder to claim damage for photo release. Bottom line, be a celebrity, be seen naked. It goes with the territory - choose or choose not.
That is all.
This is pretty much a textbook case of extortion, specifically blackmail.
He made a business out of continuing to publish embarrassing and socially damaging imagery until he was paid off. Publishing the images alone would have been a grey area at the time he did it, but the extortion site is definitely illegal.
If Google started a service where they dug up dirt on people then contacted them to get a payment in order to make the problem go away, their representatives would absolutely be hauled into court. Google knows better than to try of course.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Yeah, some guy that does slimy stuff for a few bucks. I could see someone who kidnaps 8 year olds and sells them into slavery having the same thing said about them. Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean that others share your opinion.
You have the opinion that petty embezzlement (250 bucks is petty) is the same thing as kidnapping ans slavery? I think it more likely that the only way to justify your opinion is to invent irrational analogies, which you just did.
Seriously, you don't believe it better for this guy to repay everyone he took money from illegally and work community service after? Okay, maybe he can't pay back 30-35K, but that's 1-2 years in prison normally. Add in another 2-3 years of community service and the world is going to be a better place. 18 years does not make the world a better place, it creates a tax burden because people like you are more concerned with revenge than justice.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You have the opinion that petty embezzlement (250 bucks is petty) is the same thing as kidnapping ans slavery?
Who did embezzlement? This guy did 10,000+ separate blackmails, doxing (with intent to harm), and 10,000 copyright violations. That the prosecutors went for the easy convictions and thought 18 years was enough, so the provable convictions were only for the ones where the people harmed were ones willing to testify doesn't diminish what he did.
Seriously, you don't believe it better for this guy to repay everyone he took money from illegally and work community service after?
Yeah, and if you rape a woman and steal her purse, your punishment is to pay back the contents of the purse.
Do you think the blackmail profits are the only harm from this crime,?
Learn to love Alaska
Had it been a woman, it'd have been 18 months.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You have it backwards. If you DUI and kill someone, you should get a lot more than 3-5.
18 years is extreme considering this is a case of media Distribution Rights over what should be termed "Regret Porn".
Um, no. Please RTFA or at least RTFS. The sentence is for the EXTORTION and IDENTITY THEFT, not for the porn.
No, the guy set up 1 web site where customers submitted content that he hosted on 1 server. How many victims went to the site is not relevant to this type of crime. A guy who robs 1 bank is not brought up on charges for every customer of that bank, he did 1 very wrong act and should pay for that one act. A guy arrested selling crack on the street does not get 1 count for every person who bought the drug, he gets 1 charge.
I don't like what he did any more than you, but the punishment is completely out of whack. The only way you are able to rationalize the punishment is to invent fairy tales about rape and slavery, which this guy was not arrested for doing. In fact most of the content of the site was submitted by other people who faced zero charges themselves because their acquisition and distribution of the content was done perfectly legally.
To answer your last question, as far as this guy and his web site go "yes" that is the extent of the crime. Any other fabricated "damages" were done by the parties submitting content to him. These were not the panty shots which I do take moral objection to, these were videos that couples made where both parties can do legally what they want with the content. If you are worried about naked videos of you getting out, don't give your partner consent to video or make your own. It's called being responsible for your own actions... not that people know what that really details any longer.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A guy who robs 1 bank is not brought up on charges for every customer of that bank, he did 1 very wrong act and should pay for that one act.
A guy who robs one bank and shoots 6 people in it will be brought up on the 6 shooting charges, as well as the robbery. Your argument is that you get the one (presumably worst) act at any moment, and can't count the others. I find it fatally flawed.
Learn to love Alaska
Once again you have to invent things that never happened and make comparisons to the abstract and extreme. This is called delusion, or perhaps psychopathy. Either way, there is no way to debate someone who can't separate fantasy from reality. Not the first time I have said that to you now is it? Nope. All done with this conversation, because psychopaths are never wrong in their minds.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That's not how the law works.
All done with this conversation, because psychopaths are never wrong in their minds.
You are living proof of that.
Learn to love Alaska