'Revenge p0rn' kingpin Kevin Bollaert faces 20 years in jail

"Revenge porn" website operator Kevin Bollaert has been found guilty of 27 out of 31 counts, including identity theft and extortion, and faces up to 24 years in prison. Bollaert made at least $30,000 from the website UGotPosted.com which hosted thousands of nude photos, mostly women and usually uploaded by ex-boyfriends. The …

[JustNiz]

I have absolutely no sympathy for this A hole. He's just bottom-feeding scum.

[FreemonSandlewould]

The problem is here is your emotions are not what is important. Freedom of speech on the internet IS IMPORTANT.

This guy should be covered by safe harbor. Also the pictures were willingly allowed taken and for that there really can't be any legal remedy.

The remedy is not letting the photos being taken. But here we go again treating women like they are goddesses on a pedestal when most of them are really not the meritorious.

I suspect there will be an appeal and at some point they have to acquit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you FreemonSandlewould, you are scum.

[Mr.Mischief]

That kind of response usually comes from guys who never have girlfriends, hate women and claim that they are the "nice guys" that no woman gives a chance to.

He KNEW the pictures were illegal, he tried to make money off of them, and his site was made for the explicit purpose of shaming women. This is not free speech.

People who shout off the "free speech" bit don't realise that even "free speech" is a grey area. Hate speech is not legal, neither is slander, libel or anything else that harms someone else.

If what you are saying hurts someone or ruins their reputation, then its not "free speech". Freedom extends to the limit of not causing harm.

[lucki bstard]

'He KNEW the pictures were illegal,' - were they? They were consensual photographs, what's illegal if the parties were over the legal age for their location and it was consensual?

'If what you are saying hurts someone or ruins their reputation, then its not "free speech"' - Free speech is just that, the ability to offend and be offended. The theory is that the behaviour is self correcting by society ensuring that the speech then becomes appropriate to the society it is in. Just because it offends you doesn't make it any less free. TANSFAAFL

All day people on el reg post about how Facebook et al misuse people's private information, is this really any different? Maybe you would press for prosecution of Facebook, Google etc. What about the NSA who are reported as passing around nude pictures (and who have access to the appropriate personal content.)

Those of us who have kids and are responsible have the 'social media' conversation with our kids including that you have no control over digital media. Sad but true, look at all the issues professional photographers have with photographs being reused without permission.

His crime was the exploitation with the offer of the removal of the images. He is a soft target and allows for a prosecutor to look big and drum up support for an important voting group (when are the next US elections?).

Other people were ignorant, and that isn't a crime but they want someone to blame for their ignorance and this guy is handy to blame. If the photo's were illegal then why was he not prosecuted for copyright theft, distribution of illegal material, did he have his deceleration of Adult ID (2201), did he pay his taxes etc?

Blame the victim, nope I don't. Think the victim was naive and ignorant, yep. I wouldn't blame someone who got mugged in a dark alley at 2am for being mugged; but I would say that they were naive and ignorant for being there.

[Andy Hards]

Facebook doesn't post pictures that I don't want others to see, that I may have taken in private with a partner. And if a pic is posted that I don't like while linked to my name I can get it removed failry easily The fact that the partner may then post them is wrong and everyone knows it. To exploit this and make money out of misery is disgusting. It is not the same as posting to facebook and certainly not the same as a few dickheads in an office of the NSA sharing pictures. These were put up to humiliate people and shared publicly. Yeah the guys at the NSA shouldn't be doing it but they don't seem to be ruining the lives of those few pics they share around the office. Not the same at all and you know it. Hope he gets the book thrown at him.

[lucki bstard]

@Andy Hards

'make money out of misery is disgusting' I really hope you don't watch any 'real life' cop dramas, what do you think they are doing?

Stop making a knee jerk reaction and think.

[Michael Wojcik]

They were consensual photographs, what's illegal if the parties were over the legal age for their location and it was consensual?

Publication without consent. Extortion.

'If what you are saying hurts someone or ruins their reputation, then its not "free speech"' - Free speech is just that, the ability to offend and be offended.

Damage to someone's reputation is not the same as "be[ing] offended". In the US, and indeed in most places, we recognize legal limits on freedom of expression, and one of them is damage to someone's reputation (if sufficiently severe and without mitigating circumstances). It's called "libel" (or "slander", if the expression is speech). Look it up.

All day people on el reg post about how Facebook et al misuse people's private information, is this really any different?

Yes. Bollaert edited all the submissions, so he was actively curating material, not acting as a repository for user-generated content - which is why safe-harbor protection didn't apply. And he extorted money from victims. I don't recall Facebook doing that; can you cite a case?

I know, I know. Comprehension is hard.

What about the NSA who are reported as passing around nude pictures (and who have access to the appropriate personal content.)

Yes, that would also be illegal. What's your point? If the NSA breaks the law, then we should let everyone do so?

Those of us who have kids and are responsible have the 'social media' conversation with our kids including that you have no control over digital media.

Irrelevant, unless you're blaming the victim.

Blame the victim, nope I don't.

Your argument says otherwise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate Speech

Doesn't really relate to this story anyway, but just a reminder, that ridiculous "crime" doesn't exist in the US. The closest would be inciting violence, but even then it's only a crime in a context where it can be acted on immediately.

[Bleu]

So you may consider what kind of free speech you want. Excluding slander and libel, it should all be free.

[dan1980]

@FreemonSandlewould

You are correct - freedom of speech is important. (Regardless of the medium.)

But your argument is flawed. You get safe harbour if you are providing a largely agnostic service where you neither control nor unduly moderate or curate the content. Dropbox, for example, have safe harbour protections because to them it's just bytes. Drop box is not a service for storing employment contracts or holiday photos or music files or drafts of your new novel or PC backup files or zips containing your nostalgic collection of Commander Keen games.

This site being run was expressly and explicitly for posting these types of images. They were not, in any reasonable way, agnostic to the content.

FURTHER, the person operating the site was financially benefiting from the specific nature of the content, having created a system that RELIED on the content being precisely what it was to earn (extort) money.

Freedom of speech and expression are MASSIVELY important and must be carefully guarded but so must the privacy of individuals and it is fully possible to create laws that adequately protect the latter without unduly endangering the former.

Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute - you can't slander someone publicly and claim to be protected and you can't lie naked on a park bench outside a kindergarten and claim a right to express yourself. There are limits and this is one.

[Anonymous Coward]

...Commander Keen games

Damn you, I was looking forward to work hard today, but now I have to search for some real old files.

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is this about freedom of speech? Showing compromising photos and contact details have nothing to do with freedom of speech but are in fact being used to silence ex-partners so are the opposite of freedom of speech.

[Loyal Commenter]

The problem is here is your emotions are not what is important. Freedom of speech on the internet IS IMPORTANT.

Yes, freedom of speech is important. You are free to say whatever you like, but if you commit a crime in doing so, expect to be prosecuted for it.

If you can't see why what this complete arsebucket did was both illegal and, perhaps more importantly, utterly immoral, perhaps you should be on some sort of medication.

[Nicole D.]

FreemonSandlewould

@ FreemonSandlewould

Fuck off asshole. If you think this has anything to do with "treating women like goddesses on a pedestal," I can only hope that the next time you're on your knees with a mouthful of dick and your calloused crowbar in your fist that someone surreptitiously snaps your pic, posts it online, sends copies to your family, friends, and employers, and posts it here at El Reg.

[Mark 65]

@FreemonSandlewould: Did you not read the part where he ran a secondary site effectively extorting the victims? Had he only run the first site he would have been covered by said provisions, although the reviewing of posted content may put him on shaky ground, but his greed means he now has 24 years to ponder the difference.

[Voland's right hand]

Woa... This comment thread beats the all time insults per post average on el reg and you sir gave it a nice start.

In any case - it goes to show that there is little or no need in a revenge porn law. The law book on extortion, libel and hate speech is so thick that you get the equivalent of a murder sentence if a qualified lawyer hits you with it.

In fact - if he was tried under revenge porn laws he would have gotten away with less

[LucreLout]

I have absolutely no sympathy for this A hole. He's just bottom-feeding scum.

Completely agree. The impact on his victims must have been devastating.

I'm not wholly convinced that 20 years is a reasonable sentance. I'd have expected some deterrent level jail time, but would have thought 10 years should get the message across. These, after all, are not hardened criminals, just inadequate little boys upset that some girls didn't like them. I'm sure the money element was secondary to the mysoginy.

I do hope the asshats submitting the content are getting a little nervous now though. There's hopefully scope for some sort of aiding and abetting type charges in the pipeline.

[Bleu]

There must have been a system

for sharing the extorted money with the uploaders.

[NoneSuch]

Suitable punishment would be to take all over nude snaps of HIM, his home addy, personal details and post them everywhere.

It is now Beer O'clock.

[Mr.Mischief]

I think his sad pathetic life alone in jail as someone's girlfriend will do him wonders. Karma is good at revenge too.

[LucreLout]

I think his sad pathetic life alone in jail as someone's girlfriend will do him wonders.

Girlfriend might be putting it nicely... he's going to get passed around like a spliff at a party.

[Bleu]

You are enjoying that thought?

Anybody who enjoys the thought of prison rape for someone else is a moron.

Your system is a joke.

[lucki bstard]

'Karma is good at revenge too.' And the people who posted images of ex-partners do they get bad karma as well?

How about the developers of SnapChat?

Lets put Kodak and Leica in the 'bad karma' section as well, they facilitated development and mainstream acceptance of photography.

Be careful with 'Bad karma' examples, it can bite you in the ass. How clean is your conscience? And how clean do other people think it is?

[Andy Hards]

You are comparing this guy to Leica and Kodak?

Seriously, are you 12 years old? If not you need to grow up.

[lucki bstard]

@Andy Hards

Where are the limits of responsibility.... How far should 'karma' be spread.

More of an annoyance of people who have knee jerk responses without engaging their brain cells.

[Bleu]

You are just as much an ethical monster by supporting the UK/US system of prison rape.

The punishment is wrong-headed.

A better idea: much shorter time, asset confiscation.

[Mark 85]

WTF

He gets the book tossed in his face and Craig Brittain, who was doing extortion/blackmail basically walks away without even a trial?

The justice system here in the US is truly f**ked up. Brittain should have faced a jury also. To say I'm a bit disgusted is to put it mildly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: WTF

I agree at face (and no other body part) value Brittain does seem to have got off lightly.

However don't think your side of the pond has a monopoly on fucked up justice, it's alive and well here in Blighty too,

[FreemonSandlewould]

Re: WTF

England is much more screwed up than the USA. And that is saying something in Obamao's America.

[1Rafayal]

Re: WTF

@Freedomsandlewould,

Umm, no it isnt.

[I don't have a handle]

Re: WTF

"Umm, no it isnt."

True. But it sometimes seems that we are trying hard to catch up with them. I mean, I don't think Obama has yet claimed to be continuing the work of god* and I don't think he has stated that he wants to have conspiracy theorists labelled as terror-paedo's**, so we might be racing ahead in some specific areas. We are however equal in the bellend stakes. We each have one at the top of the political tree.

* à la Cameron

** also à la Cameron

[Loyal Commenter]

@Freemon Sandlewould

Looking at your other posts, I'm trying hard to determine whether you are a rather inexpert troll, or just a terrible excuse for a human being. Neither reflects well.

[Bleu]

Re: WTF

From what I see as an outsider, they are equally fucked up, only in different ways. Not that ours is great, many confessing to things they didn't do under pressure, prison, a desultory apology when the original is proven to be wrong.

'Err, sorry for wrecking your life.'

[RichUK]

Blackmail!

I haven't thought about that Python sketch in 30 years - that made me laugh out loud after a fairly disastrous day! Excellent, thank you!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically it sounds like it's okay to post photos of the ex and it's okay to run a website allowing that. The problem seems to be charging for removal of the photo. Interesting.

[P. Lee]

>The problem seems to be charging for removal of the photo. Interesting.

Extortion should be covered by existing laws. Stupidity or lack of judgement is quite another matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Existing Laws

He was tried and charged under extortion laws, since he was making money from his other site. He was arrested before the introduction of any Revenge Porn laws, so couldn't be tried under those.

[Bleu]

Why

do people feel the need to send nude photos, photos of genitals (like those US politicians), film themselves having sex?

Not without experience, but 'can I take a photo of you nude', 'allow me to take a shot of your secondary or primary sexual features' or 'may I make a video of us in the act' has never occurred to me, let alone in a moment of passion.

Same for 'can you please send me ...'

People really are becoming stupider and impossibly vain.

[Michael Wojcik]

So basically it sounds like it's okay to post photos of the ex and it's okay to run a website allowing that. The problem seems to be charging for removal of the photo.

Bollaert was tried and convicted for extortion, but that doesn't mean there are no legal remedies available in similar cases if that doesn't pan out. It just means the DA decided that was the best charge, for whatever reason - probably a combination of chance of conviction and likely sentence.

Libel is a likely candidate. The burden of proof is relatively high and the true-facts exemption would probably be raised by the defense, but I could see a judge allowing it and a jury convicting. Depending on jurisdiction, this might be a criminal or a civil matter. Other civil suits would also seem to be a possibility, such as suing for emotional distress.

More generally, like other liberal governments, the US and the several states recognize a number of constraints on freedom of expression. The tension between that freedom and those constraints, and particularly the always-contested interpretation of the latter, mean that going after some act as an expressive act is a tricky business. So if a prosecutor has a clearer criminal charge, it makes sense to employ it. But the lack of a charge against the expressive act per se doesn't mean that act is "OK" in the eyes of the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's getting off too easy

50 years in prison would be more appropriate.

[DavCrav]

Re: He's getting off too easy

"He's getting off too easy

50 years in prison would be more appropriate."

I know don't feed the troll, but seriously, 20 years is not appropriate, never mind 50. Unless we are saying that this guy is equal to a murderer.

[Mr.Mischief]

Re: He's getting off too easy

Well I guess if one of the people on the site was someone you cared about, your sister, your mum or your daughter, then I'm quite sure you'd feel that it was equal to murder.

Bullies have driven people to suicide with less.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: He's getting off too easy

No, I still wouldn't stand for making what he did equivalent to murder, even if one of my own were a victim. That's the same insanity that got Aaron Schwartz to commit suicide. [Besides, all the females I'm related to, even the in-laws, will come after you with serious weaponry, screw the legal system. They're all ex-military as well.]

[LucreLout]

Re: He's getting off too easy

Besides, all the females I'm related to, even the in-laws, will come after you with serious weaponry, screw the legal system.

I'm sure many of the ladies gifted a starring role in his little hell circle have brothers, boyfriends, fathers etc who are perfectly capable of that kind of justice - the problem will have been finding the cowardly little beggars running the sites.

I've been around computers longer than a good number of El Reg readers have been breathing, and I'd have to do some serious research to be able to trace someone behind a .onion site. I might well simply be unable to do so. I'd bet most of the families involved simply couldn't find this joker or I have no doubt he'd have already met with the kind of justice you speak of.

[dan1980]

Re: He's getting off too easy

@Mr.Mischief

"Bullies have driven people to suicide with less."

True, but they don't get 20 years either.

[DavCrav]

Re: He's getting off too easy

"Well I guess if one of the people on the site was someone you cared about, your sister, your mum or your daughter, then I'm quite sure you'd feel that it was equal to murder."

This is precisely why we have the justice system, and not the revenge system. Posting a nude picture is not equivalent to murder. It just isn't. If it happened to someone I cared about I'd be livid, and that's precisely why we don't let victims decide on punishment.

I mean Jesus, get a clue.

[Bleu]

Re: He's getting off too easy

To DavCrav.

We do in Japan. What's presented internationally as something like a jury system (new) internationally is not. I forget the english term. They just advise on the punishment, instructed by relatives or friends of the victims.

[Richard Altmann]

How can one

be so stupid to exploit themself. No sympathy for stupids who allow photos of them taken in mutual agreement and then cry out loud when being exposed to the internet after the agreement was not so mutual anymore. What´s the point? This is the new world. The kids lost their privacy on peer pressure. Signing up to f***book, gurgle account, wazap. Exposing semselves to the world and crying murder when it turns against them. Stupid you are. "Social Networks" are nothing else then operations to get to the core of the user so he/her can be provided with tailored ads. Now, if you put your private parts in this, don´t complain about the outcome since you yourself agreed to being exposed to the public by allowing your lover of the day to take private shots of you. Stupid, that´s the word. So if someone comes along to take advantage of the stupidness of other people by exposing their stupidness, that´s called a business man but not a criminal.(well, only a slight difference there). If you expose yourself and allow to be photographed, that´s called exhibist whatwhat.

And that´s where it starts and ends. If you give away yourself in allowing to be pictured in scenes you might not want your parents to see you ... don´t allow it. He set up his sites to expose the Stupids. The ones who where stupid enough to expose themselfs and the ones stupid enough to think that they could take any revenche by publicicing intimate photos. What´s criminal about giving morons a platform to express themself?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: How can one

They did not exploit themselves, someone else exploited them.

Richard Altmann you are an ignorant twat.

[Loyal Commenter]

@Richard Altmann

You're trying to justify this sort of behaviour by blaming the victim.

I've said this before, and I'll state it again, so it might get through your thick skull:

This is akin to blaming rape victims for being 'dressed provocatively', or for being drunk at the time. This sort of defence does not go down well in court, and for good reason.

[Andy Hards]

Re: How can one

If you bother to read about any of those who fell victim to this type of scam, many had they home PC's hacked and scoured for photos. This site has given you a platform to show your ignorance and lack of basic spelling but that is not the same as posting your full name, address, phone number, place of work etc. A few saucy pics between consenting adults should not be used as a tool to extort money. Anyone featuring in the photos should have to give direct permission to be included.

Let me guess, you spend your time whacking off to these kind of sites and don't want to lose a potential stalking source?

[dan1980]

First thing - I am just sickened by this behaviour. I really shouldn't be surprised but I am a bit shocked at just how sociopathic some people can be. I felt the same when the 'celebrity photo hacking' exploded.

BUT, I am also very concerned about laws that are rushed through based on some issue that has caught the media's eye and the public's attention. Either deliberately (what a great opportunity!) or just through haste, such laws are at risk of being far too general and having consequences outside the professed purpose.

In this case, if it's blackmail and/or extortion then that's that - no new law needed. Blackmail & extortion are almost by definition, something involving sensitive and embarrassing/damaging information or media. It is a serious crime - already.

The correct way to approach this is to make a special definition of the content in question and make posting it illegal without express permission, as is the idea of several states and countries. HOWEVER, the law must be really, really specific and must acknowledge the realities of how some people CHOOSE to behave on line.

By that I mean that there are people who post photos of themselves naked online, to sites setup for that explicit purpose. Others have their partners post that content online and manage that process*. Often our laws are written by people who are out of touch with the activities and practices of the public, which is unsurprising considering they are generally upper-class, wealthy, white males in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

To some of these people, the very idea of pornography alone is disgusting and they would ban it if they could. They are often, at least publicly, prudes.

Let's take an example. What if a woman has her husband take naked photos of her and post them online to a site, for the express purpose of showing them to strangers. It's not something I would do or would be happy with my partner doing but I don't feel it's in any way weird or reprobate or sick or perverse - if people want to do that and it make them happy then go nuts.

So, let's say that happens and someone visiting the site downloads the photos and later, some years later, perhaps, posts them to some other site.

What is that person's crime? I would argue that it is simply copyright violation and so the original copyright owner would have the ability to request a takedown.

My point is simply that any law must be very carefully worded to target the specific issue - people posting intimate, private photos of people without their permission. I fear that in their zeal to look tough responding to a currently visible but rather small (though still repulsive) issue, our politicians will rush through laws that extend far wider than necessary.

We all know that any opposition to the wording and scope of laws aimed (at least ostensibly) at combat pedophiles is shouted down as being morally outrageous - how can one oppose a law that would protect children?! In all these cases, there are way to achieve the goals without doing more harm than good - we just need politicians with clear enough heads to ensure that's what we get.

* - We must also acknowledge that people change their mind and someone complaining about photos of them NOW might have requested it or agreed to it at the time. Similarly, given that the whole concept is revenge, we are saying that someone is posting pictures of their ex specifically to hurt them. Taking that, it is also possible that someone who previously agreed to have naked photos taken and posted online might, after a bad breakup, claim that they didn't originally agree and give permission, thus threatening jail-time and future relationship problems for the partner who - completely legally and with permission - posted the photos originally. I have a friend who went through a VERY bad divorce and his ex-wife made the most horrendous claims against him in an attempt to ruin his life as much as possible. Hitting their son, forcing her to have sex, cheating on her - none of it true. We must make sure we don't automatically assume guilt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave new world

Very lucid post dan1980, thanks for sharing. I agree that we have to be careful. The real issue is whether or not the photographed party consented to a public display of their nakedness. I fail to see the difference between a publically available web site and a skin mag.

Even the lowest cheesecake photographer will ask his models to sign a release form before publishing anything (unless he is really stupid). Hell my kids school asks me to sign a consent form before they publish any of their pictures, and that is the way it should be,

Any other use intimate, private content has the sulphurous whiff of blackmail. Asking for money before you take down unconsented photos is what exactly? Best to use existing laws with the new tech and work from there. The penalties for extortion and blackmail can be made quite severe, depending on circumstances,

[Mr.Mischief]

People CAN change their minds.

For instance, you meet a lady friend, take her out and end up at your place with a mutual understanding of taking things further.

If she changes her mind and says "no", what do you do? Respect her wishes or go according to the prior agreement without her consent?

Both rape and publicly shaming are both violations.

[dan1980]

Re: People CAN change their minds.

@Mr.Mischief

"If she changes her mind and says "no", what do you do? Respect her wishes or go according to the prior agreement without her consent? . . . Both rape and publicly shaming are both violations."

Absolutely, and the question is always one of whether there was consent at the time and this was my point. If I ask my partner whether we should take some 'sexy' photos to upload to a site that does that kind of thing, then it's either yes or no. If yes and I take the photos and upload them then, as we have agreed, then that is all good.

My point is that at some point in the future - after we have split, my ex might regret posting the photos and want them taken down. Let's say I still have an active login to the site and can remove them or request them to be removed. Great.

BUT, what is my ex decides to go to the police and claim that I never had permission in the first place? With these laws, it's not just a matter of taking things down as I would then be accused of a serious crime and be facing jail. Who does the burden of proof fall on? You might say that it is up to me to prove that I have permission but seeing as this is crime - with serious penalties - shouldn't I be innocent until proven guilty?

So let's say I have to provide proof I have permission - what is suitable? Would I have had to make sure I get written, signed permission? Witnessed? Stating exactly which photos? What sites?

And if so, what if someone downloads the photos from the agreed site and then posts them elsewhere and my ex insists I did it and am refusing to take the photos down or did so with malicious intent?

'Revenge porn' is a most upsetting thing and something I am repulsed by but we must ensure that in the zeal to punish these lowlifes, we don't automatically assume guilt whenever naked photos are posted online and someone claims they fall under this category.

Without overly wanting to go back to the parallel you drew with rape, the situation I am describing would be equivalent to someone having consensual sex and then, after the fact, claiming rape - perhaps after the accused was mean or rude or rejected a further relationship.

When there are particularly acrimonious splits, people can do some pretty nasty things to their exes, including lying to police and magistrates in order to try and get their ex in serious trouble.

No such situation exists here of course - this guy is plain scum and there is no defence it is possible to mount with any real believability. If he is acquitted, it will be because what he did wasn't technically wrong, not because he didn't do it.

[Mr.Mischief]

Re: People CAN change their minds.

No you're mistaken. You can't compare having consensual sex and then going to the police claiming rape here. The site was a REVENGE site. It wasn't a photo sharing site for consensual people. It was a site for people who were jilted to take revenge on the people who left them WITHOUT their consent.

If it was a photo sharing site and a couple posted pictures together and then split, one party can't claim that the other did it without their permission.

There are other people out there saying "you shouldnt take the pictures in the first place". But in relationships, people let their guard down, and there is some rule of trust. Sad that the people posting the pictures were untrustworthy a$$holes. Considering that nearly all of them were men says something about the state of entitlement that some men feel.

Society would be very different if couples didn't have sex in the off chance that the person you trust may be a prick who may take your private things and shame you in public. Or leave the house because they MIGHT get robbed by the first person they see on the street.

[dan1980]

Re: People CAN change their minds.

Mate, I think we have misunderstood each other.

The line I am taking is that any law to is passed to try to crack down on this behaviour must acknowledge the various circumstances that people might find themselves in so that the law does not unfairly target someone who hasn't done anything wrong.

In doing so, I am not referencing this specific case but potential cases that may come up in the future and might end up seeing someone found guilty because the laws are too broad when in fact that person is innocent.

The example I have given is one such situation - a (e.g.) husband legitimately posting naked photos of his (then) wife to a site with her consent and then later undergoing a very nasty divorce. In the process, the ex-wife tries to use an 'anti-revenge porn' law to threaten or prosecute her ex-husband by claiming that he had uploaded the photos without her consent.

As they were married and trusted each other at the time, it's unlikely that there was any formal, signed consent and so the husband may find himself in a very unhappy position of having to try and prove that it was there was consent and it's something they did together as a couple.

One concern is that with such emotional issues a such loaded terms as 'revenge porn', there is a real risk of doing harm in the pursuit of good - especially when politicians see an easy way to boost popularity by "cracking down" and "getting tough" by introducing "zero tolerance" laws.

In a way, one can see a potential parallel in domestic violence laws which, depending on the state, may involve mandatory arrests, mandatory charges and mandatory prosecution - sometimes even with explicit 'no drop' laws that require DAs to continue to prosecute charges regardless of the wishes of the victim. We have such a law in the Northern Territory here in Australia.

This hard-line is very much a response to real domestic violence and an attempt to drastically reduce the incidence but it also ends up with people being unfairly punished or at least taken through the wringer.

I am not against specific legislation targeting these issues but any new laws need to be scutinised to make sure they don't end up ruining the lives of people who have acted in good faith and without malice.

[lucki bstard]

Re: People CAN change their minds.

In much the same way as the one I've seen was during a child custody dispute, and the wife was threatening to post pictures and say her ex husband did it unless he gave into her demands.

Laws should be crafted carefully

[lucki bstard]

Re: People CAN change their minds.

' If it was a photo sharing site and a couple posted pictures together and then split, one party can't claim that the other did it without their permission.' - Yes they can, prove otherwise. Uploading pictures doesn't require a witnessed consent form. So how can either party down the line prove otherwise?

[LucreLout]

Re: People CAN change their minds.

My point is that at some point in the future - after we have split, my ex might regret posting the photos and want them taken down. Let's say I still have an active login to the site and can remove them or request them to be removed. Great.

BUT, what is my ex decides to go to the police and claim that I never had permission in the first place? With these laws, it's not just a matter of taking things down as I would then be accused of a serious crime and be facing jail. Who does the burden of proof fall on? You might say that it is up to me to prove that I have permission but seeing as this is crime - with serious penalties - shouldn't I be innocent until proven guilty?

Perhaps the simplest answer would be to ensure that any account registration and uploading is conducted in the name of the person being photographed, and using their PC and internet connection? The Shaggy defence then becomes both true, and viable, whatever else your ex suggests.

[John Brown (no body)]

...also worth noting the use of the highly emotive term "revenge porn". At least here in the UK, and probably most of the US states, a nude picture is not always "porn".

No, I've not seen any of these sites so I don't actually know what the most common poses are. Maybe the majority could be classed as porn. Anyone know?

[Anonymous Coward]

20 years. That's a very long time. A very long time.

Rapists get less, The 'bankers' get nothing. Paedo's often get far less, murderers too. People who mug grannies often get months. Burglars fuck all until their 10th conviction. (or in the case of US law their 3rd conviction of something like jaywalking)

20 years Just because a computer was involved, basically.

It's insane. It's frightening. It's not right in my book; sticks and stones and all that, for starters.

[Mr.Mischief]

Sticks and stones.

While I will admit that some punishments are light, what needs to be fixed are those light punishments. This guy got what he deserved.

Although the sticks and stones thing does have some merit.. Perhaps allow all the women who's pictures are posted to throw computers at him. We'll finally get some use out of those old CRTs.. and I have a few tower boxes I would gladly spare.

[dan1980]

It all depends on how the sentence is broken down.

For simply hosting the site, I think 20 years is far too much. If he obtained and posted images himself, that's something else. The blackmail/extortion is where the real crime is for me and, depending on the extent, 20 years might be about right.

[Mr.Mischief]

In some ways his running of the site is the cause of his sentence too. He created the site with the EXPLICIT purpose of shaming people's exes. If he created a site for people to share vacation photos and people exploited it, that's something else.

It's the difference between The Pirate Bay creating a FILE sharing site for people to share files (which some people "misuse" to share movies and music) and creating a MOVIE sharing site for people to share and pirate movies. Guess which one is going to get a harsher sentence from a judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the pirate bay

founders are / have been jailed!!!!!

So the file sharing site admins seem to have taken much harsher punishment than any film sharing site I can think of...

[LucreLout]

The 'bankers' get nothing

LucreLouts fork of Godwins law:

The more posts a thread attracts, the greater the probability of a comparisson involving "the bankers".

You've just Louted the thread and lost any credibility the rest of your argument might once have had.

[david 12]

identity theft ???

Where did "identity theft" come into it?