“Involuntary porn” site tests the boundaries of legal extortion(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
“Involuntary porn” site tests the boundaries of legal extortion
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/involuntary-porn-site-tests-the-boundaries-of-legal-extortion/
16 comments
Wire fraud was my first thought when reading the OP as well.
I can't tell you how many friends have come up to me with some idea for some great scam on the internet (usually just as a joke) that they think would be legal.
People readily forget that when you accept monetary transfers over the internet you still leave yourself open to wire fraud, which rather defeats the purpose of housing your scam on the internet.
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, they often use wire fraud to go after child pornographers. Could there be a precedent set there that could effect this case?
I can't tell you how many friends have come up to me with some idea for some great scam on the internet (usually just as a joke) that they think would be legal.
People readily forget that when you accept monetary transfers over the internet you still leave yourself open to wire fraud, which rather defeats the purpose of housing your scam on the internet.
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, they often use wire fraud to go after child pornographers. Could there be a precedent set there that could effect this case?
Rather similar to those sites that take mugshots and the photographee's information and posts them online, and sometimes in print editions. In particular the site http://mugshots.com/ has a link to "Unpublish Mugshot" which in turns leads you to a "service" that will get your mugshot removed for a fee. Seems to me like legal extortion as well. Would be certainly interesting to see these kind of sites taken to court.
Ken White has a lot of interesting legal comments on the issue on his Popehat blog:
http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/
http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/
This reminds me of the mug-shot removal service I read about while ago http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/mugshots/
I don't know anything about these sites other than what's described in the article, but how can they possibly guarantee that the exploited "subjects" are not minors? Shouldn't this be a legal problem for them?
If the site operators exert any editorial control at all, including accepting money in exchange for removing entries, then they are probably exposed to extortion charges, which is a felony. To extort a victim, you have to communicate a threat to harm, steal, or disgrace them unless that victim carries out some act (like paying you) against their will.
If the site offers accept money under color of an "independent" scrubbing service, or as lawyers when they are not, they are even more exposed to wire fraud. Fraud is easy: it's a knowingly made false statement of material fact ("I am a lawyer", "this scrubbing service is independent") made with the intent to deceive a victim who could reasonably rely on that statement (ie, "oh, you're independent, I'll pay you" as opposed to "oh, the sky is polka dot orange, I'll pay you") into taking some action against their will.
If the site offers accept money under color of an "independent" scrubbing service, or as lawyers when they are not, they are even more exposed to wire fraud. Fraud is easy: it's a knowingly made false statement of material fact ("I am a lawyer", "this scrubbing service is independent") made with the intent to deceive a victim who could reasonably rely on that statement (ie, "oh, you're independent, I'll pay you" as opposed to "oh, the sky is polka dot orange, I'll pay you") into taking some action against their will.
A person doing this in a foreign country out of the easy reach of authorities in the US (for example) could get away with this though for quite some time until they (or Chris Hanson the Dateline guy) caught up with them though. It's not a sustainable business of course but it would be able to make money for a short time period.
We're reading about this site because it's dramatically evil, not because it's especially lucrative. If you can find just one more brain cell than the two these guys collectively rubbed together to produce this site, you can find better ways to use an offshore web app to make money.
"one more brain cell"
People do what they are familiar with and can wrap their hands around.
The typical guy who runs the local pizza shop or small import export business does not evaluate what is the best way to earn money for their time and energy after carefully assessing their abilities and advantages in a methodical way. They do what they can wrap their hands around and get done. Something they feel comfortable with.
I don't think it's good to confuse intelligence with what someone uses their time for. Or ends up doing.
People do what they are familiar with and can wrap their hands around.
The typical guy who runs the local pizza shop or small import export business does not evaluate what is the best way to earn money for their time and energy after carefully assessing their abilities and advantages in a methodical way. They do what they can wrap their hands around and get done. Something they feel comfortable with.
I don't think it's good to confuse intelligence with what someone uses their time for. Or ends up doing.
Posing as a lawyer to collect money from young women to remove nude pictures of them published without their consent from a site you run makes you a moron, full stop.
Posing for naked pictures of yourself not thinking about what the consequences of those pictures will be in the future makes you an idiot, full stop.
In the battle of idiots vs morons, only the lawyers win.
In the battle of idiots vs morons, only the lawyers win.
More a sociopath than a moron.
"It's not a sustainable business of course"
A business doesn't have to be sustainable to be profitable.
A business doesn't have to be sustainable to be profitable.
They are going to need that money for rectal reconstruction when they get out of the clink.
Rape jokes aren't funny. Even when they involve terrible people like the operators of this site.
Absolutely. Rape as "justice" is a dark, horrible path and is not a valid deterrent.
Genuine question: If the subjects of these photos have no legal recourse, what is the point of Model Release forms?
A couple issues among many:
* The operators of the site ostensibly don't publish the images (though they may be); the users of the site do.
* The site itself isn't ostensibly "commercial"; you also don't need a model release to post an image of your friends to Facebook.
* The remedies for unauthorized use of a model's likeness are all civil and involve suing and coming up with a number for damages, which is an extremely arduous process.
* The operators of the site ostensibly don't publish the images (though they may be); the users of the site do.
* The site itself isn't ostensibly "commercial"; you also don't need a model release to post an image of your friends to Facebook.
* The remedies for unauthorized use of a model's likeness are all civil and involve suing and coming up with a number for damages, which is an extremely arduous process.
"* The site itself isn't ostensibly "commercial""
How is that even the case? If the site turns a profit for anyone (or if run as a non-profit that allows the owner to collect a salary), it should be considered "commercial".
How is that even the case? If the site turns a profit for anyone (or if run as a non-profit that allows the owner to collect a salary), it should be considered "commercial".
Perfect answer, thanks.
The non-commercial flag will come down quickly when the takedown hammer is shown to be a not-separate entity.
Because the current legal environment the site's legal status is ambiguous. (And hence could be (and likely is in this case) illegal)
Model release forms (if those are what they sound like) unambiguously state that what is going on is agreed upon and the company has the right to post the picture for their own profit. (And hence is unambiguously legal)
Model release forms (if those are what they sound like) unambiguously state that what is going on is agreed upon and the company has the right to post the picture for their own profit. (And hence is unambiguously legal)
In the European Union this sort of site would almost certainly be illegal. The EU has "data protection law" which basically say personal information is protected and one needs the consent of the person to process and do things with it. You also must store in a legal protected way. You don't even need to get into complicated "does this or does this not count as extortion" malarky.
Wouldn't a more effective strategy be to deluge the site (or make many similar sites) with nudes and contact details so as to destroy any credibility?
Without credibility humiliation would be very difficult.
Also, where are the anonymous vigilantes who target child porn?
Without credibility humiliation would be very difficult.
Also, where are the anonymous vigilantes who target child porn?
That, or ensuring that they're imprisoned for wire fraud, extortion, and/or conspiracy.
I think it was especially smart of these business geniuses to antagonize the former prosecutor who has decided to make a hobby out of destroying their lives.
I think it was especially smart of these business geniuses to antagonize the former prosecutor who has decided to make a hobby out of destroying their lives.
Ken (and later Marc) even offered to take down all his posts and stop trying to get the jokers sent to prison. They just needed to close up shop, taking down all the photos and keep them down.
The brain surgeons gave back a big middle finger.
The brain surgeons gave back a big middle finger.
Sure, I am definitely just armchair quarterbacking to their actual results.
It just seems like another one will pop up and you will be playing wack-a-mole with a rather long and expensive sounding process no?
It just seems like another one will pop up and you will be playing wack-a-mole with a rather long and expensive sounding process no?
The goal here isn't simply to take the site down; it's to get the operators of the site convicted of felonies. If that happens, I don't think there will be any great rush to score a couple hundred bucks a month running the next version of the site.
"Wouldn't a more effective strategy"
Not for a lawyer (the one doing the pro bono representation) who may very well be doing this for the publicity value of taking on the cause. (Not to mention the time and effort it would take to pull off that strategy. And you'd have to find the info to post and make up fake info which would most likely violate something in the process).
Not for a lawyer (the one doing the pro bono representation) who may very well be doing this for the publicity value of taking on the cause. (Not to mention the time and effort it would take to pull off that strategy. And you'd have to find the info to post and make up fake info which would most likely violate something in the process).
True, but for the data couldn't you just randomly sample from an address book or just make up addresses? You could attach hundreds of photos to addresses (reals ones) and hundreds of addresses to each photo.
So if they want to benefit from DMCA safe-harbor and the user-generated content defence, then they or the host would also have to remove content expeditiously following a DMCA-request, which rather nullifies the extortion element of the related site.
The subjects of many nude photos do not own those photos and cannot use the DMCA to get them taken down.
Good point! Although that would undermine Randazza's proposal in the article to sue for copyright infringement, on the basis that the owner of the copyright photos has presumably granted permission to utilise the photos.
Besides the fact that no one really wants to see me nekid... stuff like this is why I try really really hard to refrain from taking pictures of my naughty bits. It has worked for me so far. You won't find me on one of those sites. :)
[deleted]
Wouldn't it be a simple matter of finding somebody who could be underage and the call the FBI?
I have read of scammers messaging people about their "inappropriate" (wording deliberately vague) pictures allegedly found on the internet. Obviously they requested some payment before providing the exact details.
That guy certainly looks like a douche, and what he's doing is probably wrong, but I don't know if that makes it illegal.
Let's just assume you're right -- you're probably not based on what I've read at other links in this thread, but let's assume.
Then what? Innocent people get to have their genitals spread across the internet? And sure, some of them put themselves in a situation where they were irresponsible. I don't think that should leave them with no legal recourse if someone is committing de facto extortion against them. If that were the case people would basically be left to take the law into their own hands.
Then what? Innocent people get to have their genitals spread across the internet? And sure, some of them put themselves in a situation where they were irresponsible. I don't think that should leave them with no legal recourse if someone is committing de facto extortion against them. If that were the case people would basically be left to take the law into their own hands.
Right about what? I said "I don't know if that makes it illegal."
And I don't. It might be illegal and it might not be. This is one more incidence where the ubiquity of technology in our world is creating a situation that is morally clear but potentially legally vague.
And I don't. It might be illegal and it might not be. This is one more incidence where the ubiquity of technology in our world is creating a situation that is morally clear but potentially legally vague.
How legally vague do you really think this is? Running a fake independent takedown service to remove humiliating photos from a porn site is fraud and probably extortion under the plain wording of the statutes.
I don't know the particulars of fraud as it relates to the website - I haven't read anything but the OP - but the extortion claim is difficult because the images themselves have value to the website. It really depends on the representation.
That sounds like a really good point. Wire fraud is what Ken White said, after he and Randazza came to the conclusion that "David Blade", the "independent takedown lawyer", was just a screen name for the operators of the site.
(Randazza had a back-and-forth with "David Blade", who was as it turns out almost certainly not a lawyer, which is something a real lawyer can pretty quickly tell with a couple of questions, like, "why aren't you registered in the state you claim to practice in" and others).
(Randazza had a back-and-forth with "David Blade", who was as it turns out almost certainly not a lawyer, which is something a real lawyer can pretty quickly tell with a couple of questions, like, "why aren't you registered in the state you claim to practice in" and others).
I've been following this case for a while (Ken's blog is great) and suggested extortion a few times, but they seem keen on pursuing the wire fraud angle.
Probably because it's so open and shut. If the people running the site have gotten someone to send them money, it's essentially game over.
Probably because it's so open and shut. If the people running the site have gotten someone to send them money, it's essentially game over.
"Running a fake independent takedown service"
Notice how we are all (me included) willing to jump to a conclusion knowing only what we read in an article.
As I like to say there is a reason trials take a long time. Details matter and we don't have all the details. That said it looks pretty clear cut to me based on the facts presented as well!
Notice how we are all (me included) willing to jump to a conclusion knowing only what we read in an article.
As I like to say there is a reason trials take a long time. Details matter and we don't have all the details. That said it looks pretty clear cut to me based on the facts presented as well!
No. In my case, I jumped to this conclusion after reading about this on Mark Randazza's and Ken White's respective blogs for more than a week. There are lots of details and bits of evidence that the Ars story has left out.
There's always a veil of uncertainty over these kinds of stories, but let's just say that in this case, the veil is especially thin.
There's always a veil of uncertainty over these kinds of stories, but let's just say that in this case, the veil is especially thin.
"de facto extortion"
Extortion is many times a matter how something is framed though. Lawyers do this frequently with "demand" letters worded carefully to achieve their purpose but avoid appearing to extort a settlement on their clients behalf.
Extortion is more a "if you don't, then I'll" as opposed to "if you don't" (and you let the other person come to to the obvious conclusion.)
Extortion is many times a matter how something is framed though. Lawyers do this frequently with "demand" letters worded carefully to achieve their purpose but avoid appearing to extort a settlement on their clients behalf.
Extortion is more a "if you don't, then I'll" as opposed to "if you don't" (and you let the other person come to to the obvious conclusion.)
Not really. Lawyers aren't guilty of extortion when the demand letter asserts a demand they are entitled to. They issue threats to redress a legal wrong, not to obtain a preference. If a lawyer issues threats based on non-defensible demands, the victim has cause to react with countersuit or criminal charges.
I would happily hunt down the person that is allowing nudes of my girlfriend to exist online. No one has the right to display her body to the world.
If anyone is feeling particularly vigilante... the site is Wordpress served via Apache/2.2.22. Likely vulnerable to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris and other easy attacks.
That is to say, if anyone if feeling like making it harder for Ken White to arrange to have the operators of this site prosecuted, by all means, go do something illegal that the operators can then attribute to White and Randazza. Great plan.
Only after Randazza and White started poking at "David Blade" did the offering suddenly change to "Takedown Hammer", no lawyers involved.
As I understand it, Randazza and White now have email exchanges between the "people" operating IsAnyoneDown and the takedown lawyer and some of their victims; actual money has changed hands over this.
Ken White, who is an attorney and former prosecutor, lays out a pretty compelling case for wire fraud on Popehat.