Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government

California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn' 528

Posted by Soulskill
from the think-before-you-take-pictures dept.
coondoggie writes "Call it a modern day love story: Boy meets girl; they 'like' each other; they privately sext naked pics of each other to celebrate; girl loses interest, breaks it off; guy responds by posting previously private pics to Internet site specializing in revenge; girl has little recourse, suffers much humiliation, ridicule. There is a lot of pressure to change the outcome of such wretched stories, which seem to be pervasive these days. Some relief is on the way the way, at least in California, where this week the governor signed one of the nation's first laws making so-called 'revenge porn' illegal. Specifically, the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'

Comments Filter:
  • How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @03:56PM (#45018883) Homepage Journal

    we accept people get naked and do fun things?
    That would be far more beneficial in the long run.

    You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.

    TO Be Clear: IT's a horrible, rude, dhouch beg, jack ass movie to put that private stuff on the internet. I"m not siding with those assholes. It would just be nice that instead of going 'OMG she does what I do, but now its in a picture!' to 'So what, everyone does it, lets get the asshole that distribute the picture.'

    • Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:14PM (#45019133)

      I don't do it :(

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:47PM (#45019601) Homepage Journal

        I don't do it :(

        I did it before I got married :(

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think the point is people don't want pictures of themselves naked on the net. It isn't a problem of having people know you got naked and had sex. Most people are ok with that.

    • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:16PM (#45019171) Homepage Journal
      How about an old but tried and true method to avoid this.

      Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!

      Geez, when did people get so fucking boneheaded about this. Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

      Not that anything about good sex is shameful, but c'mon, use a little common sense...if you let someone in this day in age make some homemade pr0n with you featured as the star....especially a chick, you will eventually be broadcast to the world with a dick in your mouth.

      Seriously, when did people become brain dead about stuff like this, especially in this day in age?

      • Re: How about (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Speak for yourself. I'm not bright enough to stop people taking pictures of me naked (inc myself), so let's make up another law .. We don't have enough already.
        This will also reenforce some other policies, like ... If you take a family photo and I'm walking in the background, I can sue you for copying my likeness without permission.

        More boneheaded "I'm not responsible for my own actions" policies please.

      • Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:30PM (#45019393)

        Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

        Back in those days, photos were taken on photographic film which had to be developed, and in 99.9% of cases by someone not taking the photo or in the photo. Therefore, someone else would see the nudey.

        Machines were invented for developing consumer photographic films but still they would be inspected by humans for quality control. They get to see the nudey.

        In some countries, like the UK, with strict, old-fashioned prurient laws about the nudey, pictures of boobs and front-bottoms (male and female) could land you in jail with a conviction as a sexual pervert.

        So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare.

      • by eulernet (1132389)

        Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!

        On the bright side, it's a quick way to get your 15 minutes of fame:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

        by UppercaseM (2859767) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:31PM (#45019407)
        Girls can't always control if someone takes a picture of them. Pictures can be taken with hidden cameras or while they are sleeping or drunk. They could be taken in a long term relationship or marriage where splitting up seemed unlikely. The fact is that if the pictures were agreed to be kept private, that's an oral contract that was breached which lead to an invasion of her privacy and other potentially negative affects such as the loss of a job. Telling women not to take/give pictures to an SO in case the person turns out to be a d-bag is like telling musicians to not to make songs if they don't want them pirated. If you want your girl to send you pictures, then respect her equal rights to them unless you don't want nudie pictures of your girl...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world was suddenly a better person.

      Unfortunately this is not going to happen in the short term.

      So should we not act to rectify the situation in the immediate while we hold out for the ideal? Are you suggesting that the law should not actually be enacted?

      Sometimes practical realities eclipse ideals.

      • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:04PM (#45019779)

        Do you think a girl should be guilty of a crime if she reveals that her ex had only a 3 inch long penis after a breakup?

        As embarrassing a thing this may be, it is protected under freedom of speech. I don't see how a naked picture is any different.

        • Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Sabriel (134364) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:28PM (#45020033)

          It's the difference between hearsay ("Susan told me Tom was in town") and testimony ("I saw Tom in town").

          Also known as, "pics or it didn't happen".

          And when it comes to pics on the internet, it can also be the difference between "I wouldn't want to see that" and "oh god no, I can't un-see that".

          • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

            by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:20PM (#45020513)

            You can lie with pictures as well (e.g. photoshop).

            My point is that there is lots of embarrassing stuff traded between people during a relationship. Why should it be that only photographic secrets are now protected?

            I don't want the government to get into this domain, because there is either going to be severe overreach and/or a severe consistency problem.

            Sure we ave video and photographs specifically referenced. What about audio files, text messages, emails, love letters, verbal secrets, etc. I can totally see this becoming a lawyers paradise with all the new litigation opportunities. And in the end, what will we have really accomplished? Will women finally really be able to pose for nude pictures without fear of future shaming? No.

            The real problem is that society shames women, or rather that women allow themselves to be shamed, for posing for nude pictures. We may as well make a law that criminalizes the hurting of people's feelings.

        • by causality (777677)

          Do you think a girl should be guilty of a crime if she reveals that her ex had only a 3 inch long penis after a breakup?

          As embarrassing a thing this may be, it is protected under freedom of speech. I don't see how a naked picture is any different.

          Because politicians love the meme of the innocent maiden victimized by nasty brutish men, so long as the politicians get to be the knights in shining armor.

          Or the hard-working black man kept down by mean ol' racist Whitey. Or whatever -- any division will work. So long as it divides people into group identities and requires a savior, it will become a political issue.

          It's not a very funny joke, but the joke is that so many people really think the legislators voting for this give a flying fuck about w

    • What a ridiculous rule. Next we're going to hear about a law prohibiting spreading rumors about someone after a breakup.

      It sounds to me like some short sighted politician in California got burned, and now they are making another arbitrary rule. Perhaps a proportional response would be to go find these pictures and distribute them more widely.

      • by Soporific (595477)

        I wonder if Anthony Weiner's wiener pic would end up violating this law. Didn't the girl release it?

        ~S

    • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:48PM (#45019615)

      'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

      Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.

      Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.

      If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.

      • Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Theaetetus (590071) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:10PM (#45020419) Homepage Journal

        'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

        Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.

        Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.

        If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.

        I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership), but there's a counterpoint: these photos are not intended for distribution or sale, and so the actual damages for illegally distributing them is going to be (a) negligible, and (b) nigh-impossible to prove.
        "But wait," you say. "What about statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement? Surely, that's a better fit here (and a more apt punishment) than the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum RIAA cases!"
        And you're absolutely right... except that to get statutory damages, you have to register your copyright.
        By sending a copy to the Library of Congress.
        Where it is publicly archived and available.
        Your intimate sex picture.
        That you're suing over because you don't want it publicly available.

        Dang.
        Nonetheless, once it's published on a revenge-porn site, the damage has already been done, so someone wise could quickly register their copyright (you have 3 months from first publication) and then (a) file a DMCA takedown to get it removed, with huge penalties if they don't, and (b) file suit for statutory damages for willful infringement against the ex who stole it.

        • Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DRJlaw (946416) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @08:27PM (#45021473)

          'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

          I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership)...

          That's funny, since I'm an IP attorney, and I would never let anyone get away with the statement that "'revenge porn' is nearly always [a] copyright violation." The photographer or videographer will frequently be the partner rather than the subject, in which case a civil suit for copyright infringement is going to go exactly nowhere.

          To be clear: (1) The copyright is held by the photographer; (2) The copyright in the photograph cannot be assigned except through a written instrument; and (3) in these situations the court typically cannot order such a transfer. 17 USC 201(e). If you didn't set up the camera or take the photo yourself, there is very little chance that you will be able to use copyright law to address the problem.

          And never forget the ultimate problem -- anything posted on the internet will remain on the internet (through some service and at some location) essentially forever.

      • by chad_r (79875)
        In addition to the copyright issues (which I think the parent is correct about), what about the 2257 Regulations [wikipedia.org] issues? The laws in the US are pretty strict about full records being kept of the models in pornographic videos by the producers. It would seem these revenge sites are sitting ducks for child porn smackdowns.
    • Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:55PM (#45019699)

      we accept people get naked and do fun things?
      That would be far more beneficial in the long run.

      You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.

      We live in a sex-obsessed culture.
      Part of what gives sex value is the difficulty in obtaining it.
      Part of a person's value is the right to have sex with that person, which is given only at some cost.
      Part of the value of sex with this person is the rarity of it. Few have had sex with this person.
      Nudity and naked pictures are a part of the sexual process and its value. Only those who have sex with this person can see this person naked.
      This person gave the right to have sex with her to one person.
      Now everyone can engage in the seeing-naked part of the sexual process with her. This part is no longer rare.
      Others will assume that she's a trollop, greatly depreciating her sexual value since it is commonly available.
      Embarrassment is knowledge of others' diminished opinions of one.
      -> Embarrassment

      Social games are social games. An exploit has been patched.

  • by MetalliQaZ (539913) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @03:57PM (#45018901)

    What a strange time we live in.

    First, that the government needs to go stick it's nose into business like this. Second that people feel they deserve privacy for pictures they send to third parties unencumbered by any business contract or doctor/lawyer privilege. Who exactly gets to determine when a disclosure of photographs is or is not allowed? Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account? What about when someone changes their mind? What about when pictures are taken by a the second party? What about by a third party?

    Strange.

    • by javajawa (126489) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:05PM (#45018997) Homepage
      Well... without a contract... that third party does not have copyright of the image... what business does the third party have in distributing those photos, in the first place?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by fredprado (2569351)
        Depends. Did he take the picture? If so he does have the copyright.
        • by omnichad (1198475) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:13PM (#45019119) Homepage

          But you can't use that image for commercial purposes (ad-supported web site counts) without getting a release from the person who is in the photo. It's still already illegal.

          • by icebike (68054) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:27PM (#45019331)

            Not exactly true. Otherwise, posting any picture on the net would be illegal.
            Its almost impossible to take a picture in any city and not have at least one person appear in it.

            There is only an expectation of a release if your photo will be used as an endorsement or an advertisement.
            I've appeared in hundreds of news photos, sports photos (due to having great seats close to the action).

            I appear on several people's facebook pages even though I have no facebook account. If you step outside
            your home, you are fair game.

        • by javajawa (126489)
          But no model release.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Teun (17872)
      You will understand once it happens to you.
      • by tylikcat (1578365)

        Though considering that society tends to heap a lot more scorn and abuse on women so exposed than men, maybe not.

      • by Bigbutt (65939)

        You really want to see a picture of me naked?

        You are sick and twisted. :D

        [John]

      • by Obfuscant (592200) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:17PM (#45019187)

        You will understand once it happens to you.

        It will never happen to me because I set the bar for sending naked pictures of myself to someone a bit higher than "like". As in, "it's stupid to do that, whatever emotional attachment you think will be created by doing it is not worth having, and it could turn out badly when they get tired of liking me, which they will, because they clearly only like me because I sent them a naked picture."

        If you decide to make friends "love" you by sending dirty pictures to them, then you made a bad decision and as an adult you shouldn't be protected from yourself by the nanny state.

      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:18PM (#45019215) Homepage Journal

        You will understand once it happens to you.

        If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...you deserve what you get.

        For goodness sakes...try to cultivate at least a couple of healthy brain cells, and use them, eh?

      • by cod3r_ (2031620)
        Doubt it would happen to him since mostly people just put pictures of ex girls up. I also doubt most dudes give a shit if people see their junk.
    • Yeah, can't imagine the government sticking its nose into something like an ex posting naked photos of you publicly with the intent to shame you. What's strange is this isn't already against the law. Or that you seem baffled by the idea of intent figuring into the law. Wow.
      • If INTENT is the only separator, i can upload them anonymously and good luck proving I leaked them. You have to prove I did it with the explicit intent of harm. I could intend to release them as art, it is incidental if it caused the subject harm.
    • by mypalmike (454265)

      The rule of law is, at its core, a way to protect one party's rights against the actions of another party. Government is the messy system we have devised to enforce said rules. This is clearly a case where one party's reasonable expectation of privacy is violated by the actions of another party. In particular, consider homemade sex videos made by a couple which are later distributed by an angry ex. Law or no law, people are going to sue.

      This sort of "revenge porn" apparently happens often enough with curren

    • Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account?

      After reading the bill's summary, I'm not sure how this law could ever be enforced, mostly due to issue of intent.

      They readily admit that they can't generally identify who posted the pics/vids to such sites. If you can't even establish who posted it, how can you determine their intent beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless you can prove that the person who took the pic/vid in fact posted it, anyone charged could reasonably claim someone else was able to access the pic/vid from their phone/computer and uploade

  • Revenge? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @03:57PM (#45018903)

    How the hell will they prove it's revenge? If you don't want naked pics of you posted on the internet, don't let him take pictures. This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of.

  • It seems that _positive_ internet laws only get passed when it is almost "too late". This one falls into that category, methinks. I've never understood why people engage in "revenge porn" in the first place. But I guess this gives victims of this practice - mostly women I am guessing - some way to fight their ex-boyfriends or ex-lovers. Sounds like a good & needed law overall. I support it...
    • by omnichad (1198475) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:12PM (#45019101) Homepage

      What about this?
      1. In a lot of these cases, the person who uploaded the picture to the revenge site did not take the picture. It was sent to them some time before. They do not own copyright to the image. It was already illegal in that case.

      2. These sites are funded by advertising. Therefore, the images are being used in a commercial manner. Your likeness cannot be used for commercial purposes without your explicit consent. It was already illegal in this case, too. [dmlp.org]

      So we're really just adding an almost-impossible-to-prove situation on top of things that are already illegal. The problem is and always has been that the person whose picture is posted doesn't know about it because they would never visit the site. So they don't find out until everyone else already knows about it.

  • by barlevg (2111272)
    Why not just make it legal for the ex-gf to kick the guy in the balls? [youtube.com]
  • Is there anything to suggest that this law will be any more effective at curbing the free distribution of illicit data than previous laws currently failing to do the same? I'm guessing "no."
    • by geekoid (135745)

      Actualy, it does.
      It will mostly involve 2 parties. As such, knowing where the photos came from will be trivial.
      SO legal recourse, which is what this is about, is far simpler here then a bittorrent that could have come from on of 1000 machines.

  • Problem solved (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lucas123 (935744)
    Don't send naked photos of yourself to people you really don't know. In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.
    • In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.

      Good advice for Slashdotters. Nobody wants to see that.

    • by Teun (17872)
      Rather OT isn't it?

      This is about people that were in a romantic (or sexual) engagement that went sour, the internet is only got involved after the fact..

  • Ownership (Score:2, Funny)

    by nurb432 (527695)

    You gave me the image, its mine to do with as i please.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by UppercaseM (2859767)
      Not if it was agreed to be kept private (oral contract...go ahead and snicker). Also, I don't think that many people on here are considering the fact many women have pictures taken of them that they are unaware of (drunk, sleeping, hidden cam, etc.), and the type of person that would take those kinds of pictures is the exact type of person that would post them.
  • by operagost (62405) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:05PM (#45018999) Homepage Journal
    I can't imagine how they will prove intent or source in most cases. Hint: they won't. This will make the situation worse, with the legal system being used for false-flag blackmail of exes in revenge.
    • I think that a major indicator would be where it was posted. Yougotposted vs a P2P porn upload. One shows malintent, where the other could be an honest mistake uploading a folder. I'm sure a lot has to do with whether or not they are willing to take the image down as well.
    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      In other words, it'll be yet another bludgeon being able to be used in court against a husband (or father).

      At least it might help hinder the Paparazzi.

  • If it's limited to only those cases where someone can prove "intent to cause serious emotional distress", then it's not going to be very effective. I see loopholes o'plenty.

    • If the picture is uploaded to Craigslist with the caption: "For a good time, call..." or to one of the several services that exist to serve this exact market (with fields for name and contact info of the victim, no less!), no, intent is not hard to prove at all.

    • by Obfuscant (592200)
      "I posted the pictures so that someone who needed pictures to catfish someone else could do it more easily."
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:12PM (#45019099)
    hey girls and women: if you dont want some loser you dumped posting pics of you on the net then dont take nude pics of yourself,

    people need to get over their hangups with nudity, and they need to understand there is a difference between nude photos and porn, (hint: its not porn until sexual activity is involved)
    • Your not naked under you clothes. You are clothed under you clothes. You are under your clothes. And if your wearing clothes you are not naked. Also these incidents normally involve picture that were intended as pornograpy. No one is sending nudes to a lover for medical reasons.
    • Some people would argue that the reaction it causes in the viewer is what makes porn 'porn' i.e. 'I know it when i see it'. Not me, i wouldnt argue that, but other people do.
    • Or better yet, we could try to get over the collective obsession with naked bodies and who is mating with whome. We're acting like a bunch of over-evolved apes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:13PM (#45019125)

    ...but judge, my intent was to impress my friends, potential girlfriends, etc. with the hotness of my ex. ...but judge, my intent was to let other guys know that such a hottie was now available, so that she might find a new boyfriend more easily. ...but judge, this photo is a work of art and thus protected by the first amendment.

    etc...

    Intent seems a high barrier to prove...

  • This is just going to be used to supress scandals that politicians get in. I expect it will be 90% used by men against women. To hide workplace harrasment, adultry, child abuse, and prostitution.
  • by Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:18PM (#45019201)
    1. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to your boss and your mother.
    2. Don't post anything you wouldn't want your boss, and mother to read.
    3. Don't take, or allow to be taken pictures you wouldn't show to your boss and mother.
    4. Nothing is ever anonymous!

    I live by them, and so should you.
  • DRAT FOILED AGAIN!

  • Proving intent and clarifying when something was "posted publicly" is tough to do. For instance, what's to stop a slimy person from posting nude pics to a website that has a "We're still together" button that acts as a dead man's switch, such that if it isn't pressed in time, the pics get publicized. Who's doing the publishing then? And if it's one of the involved partners, when did it actually occur? When they uploaded them pre-breakup, or when they refused to lie later about their status?

    Alternatively, I

  • by new death barbie (240326) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:27PM (#45019321)

    Why should the law care about whether or not there has been a romantic relationship, or even if there's nudity?

    How about, if you have pictures of another person, given with reasonable expectations that it was for your private use (i.e. you do not have any signed permission to the contrary), why not just make it illegal to make these public with intent to bully, defame, humiliate, or shame?

    Celebrities and other people in the public eye excepted, as always, or half the entertainment industry would crash overnight.

  • Yeah, this will definitely survive a first amendment challenge. /s
  • by gmuslera (3436) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:31PM (#45019415) Homepage Journal

    If in 2008 the NSA people had no problem sharing the conversations of soldiers with their girlfriends between them [go.com] just imagine how they would be sharing now whatever digital you take with your girlfriend now. So just label it "national security" instead of revenge and should be ok. Or stop taking any digital media that is not meant for sharing with other people, no matter how good or bad are going your relations with your girlfriend, with no privacy that is the first thing that will be misused.

  • by dirk (87083) <dirk@one.net> on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:35PM (#45019465) Homepage

    I can see the intent of the law, and I think the people that do it are slimeballs, but who is going to decide this? If you post pictures and say "Look how hot my ex girlfriend was" are you trying to shame here? What if you include "I wish she would take me back but she is too good for me." Who is going to decide what your actual purpose was? And what if you are in the pictures as well? There are too many questions and judgement calls with this law.

  • by jsepeta (412566) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:26PM (#45020587) Homepage

    do you want to?

Save gas, don't use the shell.

Working...