California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website 252
cold fjord writes "Yahoo reports, 'A California man was arrested on Tuesday on accusations he ran a 'revenge porn' website, one that featured nude pictures of women often posted by jilted or angry ex-lovers ... The San Diego arrest, the latest action by the state to crack down on such websites, comes after California Governor Jerry Brown signed a first-in-the-nation law in October specifically targeting revenge porn. The law defines revenge porn as the posting of private, explicit photos of other people on the Internet to humiliate them. But authorities did not charge 27-year-old Kevin Bollaert under that law, because it is geared to those who post the incriminating pictures and not those who run websites that feature them .... Bollaert's site, which is no longer operational, had featured over 10,000 sexually explicit photos, and he charged women up to $350 each to remove their photos, officials said. ... Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission, and under anti-extortion legislation, according to court documents. Unlike many other revenge porn websites, Bollaert's site had required users post the photo subject's full name, location, age and a link to the person's Facebook profile, the Attorney General's Office said in a statement.'"
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
So he wasn't arrested for running the website at all. He was arrested for blackmail. That headline isn't just misleading, it's factually incorrect. He was arrested because of it, but not for it.
Extortion then? (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically he was running an extortion racket?
At the end of the day, you're posting intimate pictures of someone without their permission and without a model release, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for this guy. If the rest of the porn industry needs to keep model releases and the like on file, why wouldn't he?
Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is slightly ironic, because there are folks who do exactly the same thing with photos from bookings when you are arrested. He may end up on the page of one of those blackmailers. Are the cops going after them as well?
Re:He could get out of the charge (Score:4, Insightful)
If he's going to bargain, he should probably offer something the police doesn't already have.
Plus, unless those people are mostly in California, it's far better to go with the big fish you already have than a widely spread trove of hard to reach minnows.
Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.
What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.
Re:What was this guy thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kinda, sorta extortion. Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Charge people $5,000 a pop to avoid RIAA copyright lawsuits? Profit.
Charge people $3,000 a pop to avoid vague patent lawsuits? Profit.
This right and wrong stuff gets so confusing!
Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass (Score:0, Insightful)
Sure, I'd love to live in that world. We don't, though, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. You can try to shut down assholes like this, but excepting a major societal upheaval that changes the very core of humanity, there will always be more of them than you.
The Greater Internet Fuckwad theory has yet to be successfully challenged, and I believe it will remain that way. The logical course of action, then, is to advise people that this kind of behavior is unwise, for their own well-being, despite what kind of world you or I would like to live in.
Re:Hey Mr. "Open Book" anonymous jackass (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)
heard earlier today: "If knowledge is power, then privacy is freedom." Think about that in context of the NSA.
Re:He could get out of the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. California has a long and inglorious history of trying to turn itself into its own country -- second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: "This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California." They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison. ...
Note that both the "causes cancer" and "three strikes" were voter approved initiatives (Prop 65 (passed with 63%) and Prop 36 (passed with 61%) respectively), not something slipped through the legislature.
The will of the people should prevail until you disagree, right?