
California Arrests the Owner of a Revenge Porn Site - wrongc0ntinent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/11/kevin_bollaert_arrested_for_revenge_porn_california_s_move_is_a_promising.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
======
tptacek
You want to read a real story about this, Popehat is (as usual) your best
outlet; he and Marc Randazza are coordinating an investigation of Craig
Brittain, who appears to have set up a revenge porn extortion scheme using a
fake "takedown lawyer" to enable victims to pay him to remove entries from his
site.

Worth reading if only for extreme schadenfreude value.

[http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/30/the-takedown-lawyer-
lets-h...](http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/30/the-takedown-lawyer-lets-help-
marc-randazza-investigate-a-scammer-shall-we/)

~~~
asmithmd1
If the photo is a "selfie" why can't they assert their copyright and force the
photo to be taken down with a DMCA takedown notice to the web hosting company
if the site owner can't be found or is unresponsive?

~~~
DanBC
What happens if the site is hosted in anywhere but US?

~~~
alan_cx
Where ever it is, there would be local laws. Next,the US reserves the right to
prosecute its own citizens even if they commit what the US thinks is a crime
in another country, regardless of local law. On top of that, there may be an
extradition treaty in place.

Then to stretch a bitter point.......

Failing all that, of course we know the US will kidnap.... sorry, "render"
people.... All that's needed there is for them to define blackmail as a form
of terrorism. Heh, then I suppose one could justify a drone strike!!!

------
kmfrk
If you need a primer for this horrible corner of the web, this is a fantastic
and compelling article: [http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-
laws-hunte...](http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunter-
moore-erin-brockovich-revenge-porn).

~~~
andyroid
Interesting read, thank you. Still I can't help but to feel that the most sad
part of this is all the commotion over an exposed left boob. That's actually a
big deal? Don't get me wrong - I can totally relate to her feeling violated as
it should be in nobody else's power to decide how her personal photos should
be handled. I just can't let go of the feeling that perhaps if we had a more
relaxed perception of the human body, this would be no more than a shrug and a
would spare a lot of trauma.

We will never get rid of assholes, but that apparently _her job was in
jeopardy_ because of this - and that this is seemingly accepted as okay as it
isn't even questioned - was the real WTF realization for me. That is not the
work of an asshole, it is the work of a truly degenerate society.

~~~
sliverstorm
So long as there is a line in the sand of privacy, assholes will figure out
how to abuse it and make people miserable.

And there will always be a line in the sand _somewhere_ , unless we completely
abandon the very notion of privacy. It just so happens that line happens to be
somewhere around "nudity" right now.

So don't get caught up in where the line is. For can you not picture the exact
same story in Victorian times? "Oh, but if only we as a people were not so
prudish, to be upset about an ankle..."

~~~
dictum
Of course revenge porn is disgusting, but I think more people should stand up
and make it clear that what makes it disgusting is not so much the nudity, but
the lack of consent and the aggression/humiliation.

I could be mistaken, but even in Victorian times, I think many people felt
that being bothered about showing ankle was dumb, but didn't stand up because,
hell, "everyone seems to be disgusted by it, don't they?"

I still believe the media should start emphasizing _how dumb it is to pester
and punish people whose nude pictures got leaked_ instead of essentially
saying, _" ooh, careful with your nude pictures or they might end up on the
internet!!!"_.

~~~
sliverstorm
_what makes it disgusting is not so much the nudity, but the lack of consent
and the aggression /humiliation_

Is that not intrinsically obvious to everyone? Is there anyone saying, "We
must shut down Hunter because he is publishing nudity"? I thought we were
_all_ angered because of the lack of consent, aggression, and humiliation?

------
timr
Another "revenge porn" operator was on On The Media last week, and I've rarely
had a more visceral reaction against another person in my life:

[http://www.onthemedia.org/story/revenge-porns-latest-
frontie...](http://www.onthemedia.org/story/revenge-porns-latest-frontier/)

(EDIT: originally misattributed this interview as the guy arrested today; I
was wrong.)

~~~
blah32497
Really? I thought it was very humanizing and interesting to see the guy behind
it all. He clearly caught up in the money and attention. Ofcourse he was a
complete asshole, but he was self aware and felt bad about what he did. He is
just the epitome of a troll - feeding off of other's misery. Schadenfreud to
the Nth level.

~~~
timr
That struck me as crocodile tears -- the telling moment for me was when
Garfield asked him if he'd post pictures of his own mother or sister, and he
reacted as if the question were completely absurd.

I decided then that he was either stupid, sociopathic, or both. In any case,
you can't be sincerely sorry about that sort of behavior, and still do it
regularly for fun.

~~~
blah32497
The question WAS absurd given the context. He clearly explains right before
that he does it because he enjoys doing the job - he enjoys trolling people,
and he enjoys the money. He isn't doing it because he has some sick set of
principles. He is NOT for instance saying that all pictures of naked people
should be posted on-line or anything like that. So if he's doing it completely
for his own enjoyment, why would he post pictures of his naked mom or sister?
Why would he want to troll himself? Like he says, that doesn't make any sense.

The fact that Garfield didn't try to understand his motivations was what
shocked him. Garfield's attempt at painting him as a sociopath was a wonderful
piece of editing (and frankly defamation). Unfortunately OTM does this all the
time. They feign objectivity for most of the interview, and then generally
towards the end they editorialize in some small way so that they don't come
off as sympathetic.

~~~
timr
So, your logic is that because he's motivated by the enjoyment of making
people miserable (without their consent), he's not a sociopath?

Garfield's point was that this is the thoughtless sadism of a cruel child, not
that the guy is somehow _worse_ because he's unwilling to inflict the same
pain on his family that he inflicts on strangers.

~~~
blah32497
Please don't misunderstand, I'm not excusing his behavior. He's not a
sociopath because she shows remorse and cares about the people around him. The
guy wasn't making excuses for himself. He's not operating on some righteous
framework, which Garfield's question implies. He's not saying he's doing it
because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He knew what he was doing was
wrong and he feels bad about it, but he was simply enjoying it too much to
stop.

If I steal a candy bar and you ask me why I did it and I said "Well I felt
bad, but it looked tasty and I really wanted it". Asking me then if it's okay
for other people to steal stuff from me is a dumb question to ask. The only
goal of the question it to try to shame me. The awkward silence was awkward
b/c Garfield asked a dumb question. It was trying to shame the guy and show
some hypocrisy. But there is no hypocrisy. He's fucking people over, and
making himself rich. The guy already knows he's mistreating others.

------
jakejake
I wonder if he's going to pay $250 to get his photos off of mugshots.com

------
Mikeb85
While 'revenge porn' is a scumbag move, women should be thinking twice when
taking pictures of themselves naked (men too).

It's easy enough to send a picture to the wrong person, to lose your phone, to
have your SO open the picture in a compromising social situation (in a
meeting, public places, etc...), in addition to the 'revenge' scenario.

It's easier to simply not take the picture than to assume your ex won't be a
douchebag after you break up.

~~~
rosser
And I suppose women should also think twice before putting on that slinky
dress, or walking down that street at night, or going out with that guy?

Victim-blaming is victim-blaming, regardless of context. The person who
behaved wrongly in these circumstances is the person who uploaded the pic to a
revenge porn site, _not_ the person who took it, full fucking stop.

~~~
alan_cx
Ok, but what about personal responsibility in the real world? There is what we
all should have the right to be able to do or , ha, ha, keep private (NSA,
etc), and what is prudent or wise.

So, to exaggerate to illustrate.... It is a woman's right to walk down a dark
ally in a dangerous neighborhood, dressed provocatively, how ever you define
that, but, lets fact it, it isn't wise.

So, in some contexts, yes a woman should think twice about what she is
wearing, where she is going or that guy she might be meeting. And frankly, so
should men. No so much the clothes, but there are places I would avoid at
certain time, and yes, there a some women I'd want to avoid.

As for "victim blaming", well, sorry, some victims are partly to blame, and
should shoulder some of the responsibility. That does not excuse the offender,
but it does have relevance. Both exist. And if you think that is wrong, then
tell insurance companies and courts about limiting damage. "Was you car locked
where you left it before it got stolen, sir?"

Oh, fuck, fuck, fuck.

Did those fucks make me any more correct?

~~~
AlexMax
> And if you think that is wrong, then tell insurance companies and courts
> about limiting damage. "Was you car locked where you left it before it got
> stolen, sir?"

"Rape Shield" laws are fairly common in the United States and elsewhere which
prevents cross-examining rape victims about their past sexual history or
submitting such things as evidence at trial.

This is done precisely to combat victim blaming and is much more relevant than
your hypothetical "unlocked car" metaphor.

~~~
fossuser
I think his point is that there are risk factors associated with choices and
it's valuable to be aware of them and attempt to mitigate the risks.

Obviously the fault doesn't lie with the victim, but since the world can be
dangerous it's important to be aware of that reality when making choices. If
certain actions increase your risk (walking alone at night, taking naked
pictures etc.) then it's better to consider that when making a choice in order
to avoid potentially becoming a victim.

You're only in control of yourself - while we can and should strive to make
changes to our culture and the system, that doesn't mean individuals should be
blind to how their own choices may contribute to increasing their risk of
being victimized.

~~~
Mikeb85
Absolutely. We lock our doors at night, we lock our car doors, we do our best
to prevent becoming victims. Not because we think it's our fault if it
happens, but because we don't want it to happen because at the end of the day,
it's our lives that are hurt...

------
cobrausn
So, what I'm seeing is that if he had not tried to extort people by demanding
money to remove the photos, his site would not have been illegal?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I expect (hope) that child pornography distribution will be added to the
charges as they build the case.

~~~
ZoFreX
Libel too presumably, in the cases of the photoshops^Wimages manipulated by
Adobe Photoshop(R)

~~~
rsynnott
Libel isn't (generally) criminal; it would be up to the people involved to
take such a suit, and most probably wouldn't have the means to do so.

~~~
tedunangst
You also need to prove that the perpetrator knew the images were fakes, which
is usually pretty difficult.

------
JulianMorrison
Good. Everyone who owns, works for, frequents or defends these sites is a
sociopath and a failure as a human being.

------
sliverstorm
_That’s why I’m standing with Hunter Moore. He’s a great big jerk, but he
needs to have the right to post facts that politically powerful people like
Charlotte Laws want to keep hidden_

What about facts like her home address, home telephone number, and social
security number? Does Moore need the right to publish those things if she
wants to keep them private?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Newspapers occasionally publish these things - see the recent example of an
upstate NY newspaper digging up the addresses of gun owners. Or see the nyt
widely publicizing the location of the new Goldman Sachs HQ, something that
was nominally private.

(I say "nominally" because like the address of assorted gun owners and revenge
porn victims, these things are a matter of public record.)

Send the editors to jail?

------
kingkawn
The cultural outcome of this someday is going to be that everyone has had
their sex exposed somewhere, so it stops being a big deal. Like all sorts of
other previously taboo topics. That day will be far better.

------
yummyfajitas
Its great that the power of the law is currently being directed at great big
jerks, but do we really think it will stay this way?

These revenge porn sites are journalism. And apparently we are all now
cheering the government as it shuts down publications whose motives and views
we disagree with.

[http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moor...](http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moore.html)

~~~
blueblob
It is not journalism to hack people's computers, steal their stuff and pit it
online.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You mean like the Guardian did after Snowden stole peoples stuff and released
it? Or like wikileaks/etc? Or assorted other newspapers releasing illegally
acquired information?

~~~
tptacek
These are bad examples, because the legality of publishing Snowden and
Manning's documents was in fact legally tenuous, and so far the publishers of
the documents are protected largely by the enormous public welfare
implications of the documents themselves. Especially in Snowden's case, that
could change. Wait 6 months and see if the Snowden trove results in
operationally relevant serious foreign intelligence disclosures that don't
implicate the rights of US citizens, and then we'll see how much "journalism"
really is a free pass to publishing "anything".

------
rlt
_California is getting serious with efforts to end the scourge known as
"revenge porn," in which men who want to hurt women (usually as "revenge" for
dumping them) post naked photos of the women online and then encourage their
community of fellow misogynists to harass them._

Revenge porn is definitely not just a male vs female thing. IIRC IsAnyoneUp
had a large portion of male victims.

------
blah32497
At least with this guy we had some recourse. When some Polish programmer makes
a copy cat website no one will be able to take it down.

Bollaert just showed us the new reality: You can't stop the internet from
trolling. Everyone missed the moral of the story and just sent the law after
him.

(I think if he played this off as a social experiment to expose the world we
live in, he'd have gotten a lot more slack )

------
knodi
I'm not sure I agree with this. The owner of the site didn't post any content
him self or steal anything. I know and understand that the content of the site
updated by its users has harmed many people and is morally wrong. But they
should be going after the users that updated the content not this guy.

Ask you self whats the different between anonib.com and revenge porn site?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I take it you didn't read the article. Please do so now, paying special
attention to the words "blackmail" and "extortion".

------
ps4fanboy
Does this count as revenge porn under these laws?

[http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2013/aug/06...](http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2013/aug/06/peter-
dowling-australia-sexting-penis-wine)

------
tn13
I am curious to know if I can make my girlfriend sign a document giving me the
absolute rights of all the photographs I might click of hers. [I am only
hypothetically speaking.]

~~~
jimktrains2
You own the rights to any photo you take, regardless of who is in it.

However, you can't use the subject to advertise or endorse something w/o their
consent iirc (ianal).

~~~
grecy
> _You own the rights to any photo you take, regardless of who is in it._

Are you sure? I remember reading about a bunch of lawsuits against people that
had taken photos of iconic shapes (coke bottle, certain cars) and the maker of
the iconic shape claimed copyright. (I can't find a link right now)

~~~
jimktrains2
How was that image being used was probably important in those cases.

~~~
grecy
Are you saying that even though I own the copyright to an image I can't use it
however I want? (Genuinely confused)

~~~
jimktrains2
Yes. You can't use the subject of the image to advertise or otherwise promote
something without the subjects consent, but the image itself is your property.

You could take a picture of a random person in public and publish it in a
gallery, but you couldn't use that image to sell your brand of pop, iirc and
ianal. Sorry I can't find a good link right now.

------
SilasX
If it takes this long to stop something like this, then god help you if you're
victimized in a less elaborate crime!

------
Pitarou
About goddam time.

------
kimonos
What an absurd way of earning money..

~~~
camus2
Well, some make money in more absurd ways, like the (War)Defense industry...

------
omarkatzen
I was shocked to learn that this was legal (in other states) in the first
place. Disgusting.

