California Arrests the Owner of a Revenge Porn Site

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

by wrongc0ntinent • 13 years ago

135 154 13 years ago

kmfrk• 13 years ago

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....

andyroid3• 13 years ago

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.

Crito4• 13 years ago

There was a picture and personal details. It is not as simple as puritan values giving people leverage over one another, this family was left questioning how safe they were in their own home.

sliverstorm5• 13 years ago

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..."

jakejake• 13 years ago

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

tn13• 13 years ago

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.]

jimktrains23• 13 years ago

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).

grecy2• 13 years ago

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)

gamblor9563• 13 years ago

You own the rights to the photo...but that does not necessarily give you the rights to the object(s) photographed, or in the case of a person, to their likeness.

roel_v• 13 years ago

The issue in this case was not about the rights on these pictures, it was about what was done with them, apart from IE issues. You can't enter into a contract that will let you do illegal things to somebody. So you can't enter into a contract that will let you extort her. Of course once a contract exists that says you can do anything you want with the pictures, the bar for being 'extortion' will be much higher. It will still be contextually defined by a judge though. It all depends on the exact circumstances.

cookingrobot• 13 years ago

It's called a model release.

_bfhp4• 13 years ago

Why would you be interested in such a thing, even hypothetically

cobrausn• 13 years ago

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?

jacalata2• 13 years ago

That would explain the charges of extortion, but not identity theft (the conspiracy charges went with the extortion).

The identity theft is listed in the complaint as "did willfully and unlawfully obtain personal identifying information of Jane Doe #1 and used that information for an unlawful purpose to wit, to harass and annoy, without the consent of Jane Doe", about 25 separate counts. It's not quite clear to me what behaviour this covers, but I think it's adding identifying info to the photos - and if just that was illegal, that would be a pretty good change it sounds like.

PhasmaFelis3• 13 years ago

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

ZoFreX4• 13 years ago

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

tptacek12• 13 years ago

Correct. Or, at least, it would not have been "as illegal"; you could still fall afoul of specific state laws targeting the practice directly. But (as usual) where you run into real trouble is in monetizing the practice.

gamblor9563• 13 years ago

It would still have been illegal, but probably not criminal. (I.e., it would have been a tort rather than a crime.) However, in some states, and in many nations, it would still have been a crime.

timr4• 13 years ago

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...

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

blah324974• 13 years ago

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.

timr4• 13 years ago

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.

streptomycin• 13 years ago

That's a different guy, and that's an interview from 2011.

timr4• 13 years ago

Ah, indeed. I should have double-checked the name.

dredmorbius• 13 years ago

Yep. Was just going to link this myself, searched to see if anyone else had.

Bob Garfield's interview with Hunter Moore was haunting. If there's a definitional interview of a psychopath, I can't think of a better instance.

yummyfajitas10• 13 years ago

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...

blueblob• 13 years ago

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

ianhawes2• 13 years ago

But in most cases, nobody was "hacked" at all. The photos were distributed, without limitation, to 1 or more people by the actual subject of the photos.

yummyfajitas10• 13 years ago

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?

jasonlotito• 13 years ago

hack people's computers, steal their stuff and pit it online.

All 3 of those things were already illegal, and had legal remedies.

nextstep• 13 years ago

How is revenge porn journalism?

ianhawes2• 13 years ago

I believe he means they are protected free speech.

yummyfajitas10• 13 years ago

Are you seriously disputing that releasing Anthony Weiner's selfies is journalism?

CatMtKing• 13 years ago

I'm cheering anyway. It's not possible to have a set of laws or system that will prevent all misdeeds and protect all basic rights.

48snickers• 13 years ago

The charges in this specific case are blackmail. I don't think this has anything to do with viewpoints or consent.

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamal...

tptacek12• 13 years ago

What isn't journalism by this definition? The simple response to your question is that if "journalism" has the nearly-useless definition you're providing, then "journalism" simply doesn't get to receive deference from public policy.

Candidly: the publication of the Weiner "selfies" wasn't a high water mark for "journalism" anyways. Media outlets could have authenticated the photos and then published the simple facts of what had happened. Instead, those outlets applied their own morals and judgement to the situation, made their own decision that Weiner was an asshole, and punished him by repeatedly and gratuitously humiliating him. Maybe that shouldn't have been O.K. The public interest in the actual photos was, let's be honest, pornographic.

yummyfajitas10• 13 years ago

Is releasing anthony Weiner's selfies not journalism? That's revenge porn by any reasonable definition.

I would say that releasing true facts about people with documentary evidence is journalism. What else would it be?

byerley3• 13 years ago

The problem is that people have gotten comfortable with the idea that it's acceptable to hate someone for their hateful beliefs - forgetting that virtually every belief can be considered hateful with the right spin.

While I think this case had mitigating factors and the guy could have been charged anyway, I certainly don't trust the jerks in the DA's office to decide who the other jerks are.

rsynnott2• 13 years ago

Putting illegally obtained images on a website and operating an extortion racket to get them taken down is _not_ journalism.

gamblor9563• 13 years ago

By this logic, all killing should be allowed because we merely disagree that some types of killing. All type of sexual activity should be allowed because we merely disagree that some types of acts are non-consensual. Indeed...all types of crimes should be allowed because we merely disagree that some things are crimes.

Absolutism may work wonderfully in a fantasy universe, but it has no place in reality. There is a huge difference between the non-consensual posting of someone else's pictures (i.e., revenge porn) and Anthony Weiner, a politician running for office, posting his own pictures of his own privates to women he had just met or not even met. (Hint: in one situation, the subject of the photo did not consent to the distribution of the photo, and may not even have consented to the photo itself. In the other situation, the utter stupidity of the actions calls into question Weiner's judgment and demonstrates a propensity for making rash decisions, both of which are important to know when electing a representative.)

anigbrowl5• 13 years ago

These revenge porn sites are journalism

Nonsense. I read your blog post; you begin by asking readers to imagine an alternative reality where someone engaged in briebery is expose d by a journalist (despite the briber wishing that such activity would remain private), and then draw a false equivalence between bribery and exposure of one's body in a photograph. The differentce is that while bribery is a crime in most jurisdictions, taking a revealing photograph (or being the subject of one taken by someone else) is not a crime in any of the jurisdictions that apply here. So your public interest argument goes up in smoke.

You go on to draw a comparison with Anthony Wiener. But given that a) he is occupying public office while b) sending unsolicited pictures of a sexual nature to random women he encountered on the internet, that isn't equivalent either. There is a public-interest argument to be made about the unwisdom of him sending out sexy pictures of himself (albeit a limited one; I think most people were more offended by his persistent cheating on his wife than being a horny guy, and this might not have been such an issue if he was single), but you seem to have forgotten that the story first made headlines because he mistakenly posted pictures to his public Twitter account and then organized a wild-goose-chase investigation by falsely claiming his Twitter account had been hacked. This is very different some third party making public a picture of him that he had anticipated would be kept private.

Now I like a good contrarian argument as much as the next guy but this isn't a well-formed argument; it's irrational on its face and degrades the subject of the story in the process of trying and failing to make a point.

yummyfajitas10• 13 years ago

There are all sorts of legal acts which reporters write about and which others might like to keep hidden. For example, consider "secretive rich guy is a racist" or "person I disagree with took money from Koch". As a tech related example, consider assorted hit jobs on peter thiel, pax Dickinson, etc.

An act doesn't need to be criminal to be of journalistic interest. And a public figure is just a person that reporters take an interest in.

garthdog• 13 years ago

Pure HN gold.

thatthatis• 13 years ago

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" standard is pretty clearly applicable here:

Here are photos of someone naked vs here are photos of someone naked along with workplace, home address, home phone, etc.

Yelling fire isn't protected as it insights panic.

Doxing/revenge porn should be protected as it insights harassment.

tptacek12• 13 years ago

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...

asmithmd1• 13 years ago

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?

tptacek12• 13 years ago

The photos often aren't selfies. If they are, the process for getting them removed is still onerous, and their publication remains malicious and (in this case and others) extortionate.

DanBC• 13 years ago

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

seniorsassycat• 13 years ago

In this interview Hunter Moore, another revenge porn site runner, argues that the photos are intended for someone (why else would you take the photo?) so the copyright is shared.

While that's not how copyright works and many of the photos on his sites were stolen it seems to be enough to hold up DMCA's.

The interview is interesting, I don't think I've ever heard an NPR interviewer speak with such derision towards their interviewer.

[1] http://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/335039

makomk• 13 years ago

Bear in mind that Marc Randazza is pretty heavily invested in online extortion schemes that're based around user content being legal and protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in general; he's primarily employed by a company that makes their money that way, just in a less controversial field than revenge porn. It'll be interesting to see his reaction.

Edit: for the downvoters, he was and is hired on this issue by a network of sites called ViaView Inc; most news coverage mentions their site Bullyville. Substantially all of the ads on that network of sites are either for other sites in the network - especially Cheaterville.com - or for services offering to remove "defamatory" content from Cheaterville for fees in excess of $1000. (For a while early on in his crusade, there were no other external ads on any of the sites and no information on how to advertise with any of them.)

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

That popehat link is a different person (from last year no less, and apparently no resolution a year later?)

I don't suppose anyone knows what happened to Craig do they?

rhizome• 13 years ago

Generally, he has gone to ground.

Mikeb856• 13 years ago

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.

imgabe• 13 years ago

It's also really easy to not upload a photo to a website. Blaming the victim is not the answer.

Mikeb856• 13 years ago

It's not blaming the victim.

It's simply stating that in complicated relationships where feelings are likely to get hurt and people do enact various forms of vengeance (women included), it's best to have a little vigilance.

Expecting that no former lover will ever act out against you is unrealistic.

The 'sexting' thing has gotten out of hand, to the point where kids are being put into jail for having photos of underage kids of the same age, celeb photos are leaked all the time, etc... It's better to avoid taking the photos than to try avoid the consequences later.

RokStdy• 13 years ago

Why is suggestion caution the same thing as 'blaming the victim'?

This is ridiculous. A very good solution to the "revenge porn" problem is for people to not cavalierly take naked pictures of themselves.

So, I take a naked picture, share it, sharee shares again, <step>, <step>, revenge porn upload.

I am appropriate in my action, and then the propriety drops as the chain goes on. But why is it unfair to say, don't take the pic in the first place and you can avoid what (may) come next.

PhasmaFelis3• 13 years ago

Quite a lot of the IsAnyoneUp pics were perfectly innocent headshots photoshopped onto porn bodies. IIRC, there was also a batch of post-surgery photos from a hacked medical database. To be completely safe from extortion-porn sites you'd need to never allow anyone to take a photo of you, in any context, ever.

If people are getting attacked in the streets, warning everyone to stay indoors only redirects the problem. To really stop it, you need to find and arrest the perpetrators. Saying "it's your own fault for being out after dark" does not cut it.

Mikeb856• 13 years ago

Quite a lot of the IsAnyoneUp pics were perfectly innocent headshots photoshopped onto porn bodies. IIRC, there was also a batch of post-surgery photos from a hacked medical database. To be completely safe from extortion-porn sites you'd need to never allow anyone to take a photo of you, in any context, ever.

Did I ever say anything condoning revenge porn? No, just a bit of social commentary and a suggestion that sexting has gotten out of hand. And at least in a photoshop scenario, you have deniability to protect your reputation.

Extortion of course is a crime, and those who engage in it should be prosecuted.

If people are getting attacked in the streets, warning everyone to stay indoors only redirects the problem. To really stop it, you need to find and arrest the perpetrators. Saying "it's your own fault for being out after dark" does not cut it.

I've spent time in countries where I've had to hide in the back of vehicles at police checkpoints, and where I couldn't let anyone know where I was staying, or go out after dark.

Where people were shot dead in the streets by police 2 blocks away from the house at which I was staying during a blackout.

While it's nice to say that you should be able to go anywhere you want at any time you want, when it's actually your life on the line you take the safe route...

Crito4• 13 years ago

"If people are getting attacked in the streets, warning everyone to stay indoors only redirects the problem. To really stop it, you need to find and arrest the perpetrators."

Both seem like good ideas, with the second of course being a higher priority, receiving more funding.

Universities in cities frequently send texts and emails to their students warning them of recent muggings/shootings at such-and-such street. That doesn't mean those universities think that those messages are "the solution"; thinking that would be rather foolish. They also invest in more security, assist police investigations however they can, etc.

In this case (http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/charlotte-laws-hunte...) the "Jack" person apparently gave the family some advice for securing their computers... that wasn't Jack saying that securing computers was the solution, or saying that the victims were at fault because they had insecure computers.

marincounty• 13 years ago

Actually--telling people you don't want to be in a photograph is a start, but I have a feeling in our current narcisstic culture, people won't take that option. A note to dudes--stop taking pictures of your junk. A note to chicks--stop taking pictures of your food, and please stop tilting that jug head in every photograph; actually wiki American Indians and unselfaware!

rayiner3• 13 years ago

C'mon. You're essentially accusing him of victim blaming, and you'd never do that if say someone suggested not giving out your social security number over email or using strong passwords for your bank web login.

Yes, we should find and prosecute people who do things like this. On top of that, it's reasonable to tell people to exercise prudence and caution. As long as the U.S. has a puritanical bent, and a sexist bent, as a woman it's giving a lot of power to a man to send him naked pictures of yourself. This is true, to a lesser degree, if you're a man as well (see Anthony Weiner).

Prosecuting the perpetrators and berating coworkers for their puritanical views won't undo the impact of their seeing photos of you with your breasts or penis exposed. This is just acknowledging reality.

ZoFreX4• 13 years ago

Naked pictures of me have leaked three times - once from hacking and twice from people spreading them. Why should I stop having my fun just because there are bullies out there? They can bite me, my ass, and the picture of my ass that's all over the internet.

jjcm• 13 years ago

I've taken the opposite, albeit extreme, approach to solving this problem. If I want to send a nude to my significant other, I'll post it publicly then send them a link. If I'm not comfortable with it being posted publicly, then I wont take the photo. If you go in with the expectation that the picture will eventually find its way onto the internet, then you wont be burned when a phone gets stolen, a cloud account gets leaked, or a significant other seeks revenge.

rosser3• 13 years ago

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_cx2• 13 years ago

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?

_bfhp4• 13 years ago

Why is this getting downvoted? It's a well-articulated opinion. If people can't handle reading terms like "victim-blaming" without lunging for the down arrow, they should probably stay on Reddit

rayiner3• 13 years ago

The dress example is misleading because I've never seen a correlation between rape victimization and clothing choice. Indeed,the example fundamentally misunderstands the nature of rape.

Re: walking down the street at night... The moral righteousness of being right doesn't undo the trauma of being raped. We should be able to trust people with the private information we share with them, but people are assholes and we can't. All the moral righteousness in the world won't change that.

clarkm• 13 years ago

Honest question: What's the difference between that and telling someone they shouldn't use 123456 as their password because it increases the chances that their account might get hacked?

Mikeb856• 13 years ago

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.

Yes, if only things were so cut and dry. I won't disagree that the person who behaved wrongly was the person who put the photo on the site, just as I would never say it's a rape victim's fault they got raped, or someone's fault they were murdered.

That being said, we don't live in a perfect world or society, and we should take reasonable precautions.

It's all good to tell the police to do their fucking job and protect citizens, but I've been in places where you simply don't go out at night, where the police will rob you and leave your body in a field, and where you won't even tell anyone what neighbourhood you're staying in... Where women are raped and have no chance of justice ever, where men are murdered simply for walking down the wrong road, or sometimes simply for living in the wrong house. I personally know/knew some victims. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest exercising caution...

Dan_Nguyen• 13 years ago

It's not always women taking shots of themselves.

Long before she met me, my fiancee had an extremely abusive bf. He'd drug her then take pictures and videos of her. When she wanted to leave he threatened to release those pictures to her family. When she finally did (after he assaulted her and her parents), he kept his word.

I won't go into the profanities that accurately express my visceral emotions, but I think a law like this is long overdue. It's wrong that people who take pictures of themselves are being blackmailed to stay with those same pictures, but with the focus the media has on teenagers sexting inappropriately, I feel people forget there are others out there who had these materials taken against their will.

sliverstorm5• 13 years ago

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?

yummyfajitas10• 13 years ago

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?

knodi• 13 years ago

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?

_bfhp4• 13 years ago

What's the difference between non-sexual harassment and sexual harassment?

PhasmaFelis3• 13 years ago

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

blah324974• 13 years ago

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 )

kimonos• 13 years ago

What an absurd way of earning money..

camus2• 13 years ago

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

SilasX• 13 years ago

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

kingkawn• 13 years ago

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.

omarkatzen• 13 years ago

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

ps4fanboy• 13 years ago

Does this count as revenge porn under these laws?

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2013/aug/06...

rlt• 13 years ago

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.

JulianMorrison• 13 years ago

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

Pitarou• 13 years ago

About goddam time.