Hacktivist collective Anonymous has set its sights on the former owner of a "revenge porn" website. Hunter Moore gained internet infamy by posting sexually revealing images of men and women without their permission, alongside links to their social networking profiles. The images were normally submitted by aggrieved ex-boyfriends …
Anonymous characterised Moore as a bully and facilitator of abuse
LOL, savour that irony.
Re: Anonymous characterised Moore as a bully and facilitator of abuse
Almost bordering on the unbelievable, hmm... what was that website where Anonymous spawned originally... something about an "Internet Hate Machine".
Re: Anonymous characterised Moore as a bully and facilitator of abuse
You missed "held accountable for his actions".
Re: Anonymous characterised Moore as a bully and facilitator of abuse
I find it amusing that you expect a group of disparate anarchists to have a clear agenda or consistent direction or motivation.
I hope this disgusting little oik, who is reveling in the attention he is receiving, gets his entire life shut down and his 'new' web site torn to shreds.
I think that's a given
Whilst he certainly is a money-grubbing oik, his site was taking $20k in advertising hits, which suggests the problem was not only his site but the large number of people going to it. In essence, he is no more culpable than those sites that put up pics of nudists or public topless sunbathers as pr0n. Distasteful as his site is, he hasn't actually commited a crime, and trying to link his site to an unrelated bullying suicide is in itself a debateable tactic.
You also have to question the stupidity of people that give their partners nude pics - why are they so suprised they might be passed on? I am seriously amazed that people still do this even after years of stories of jilted lovers putting their sex vids etc online! Either they are seriously clueless or actually enjoy the exposure. Whilst I do think the clueless ones deserve some sympathy if only out of pity, it is also not illegal to ridicule them, and probably not illegal to link their nude pics to their other public material such as Facebook accounts. I suppose the only possibly illegal area would be if he linked to the wrong account, whereupon he could possibly be sued for defamation of character, but as long as he links to the correct accounts he would seem to be legally clean even if he is a gigantic scuzzball.
In the meantime, I'm sure Hunter is not only laughing at all the free publicity the Anonyputzs are giving him, but is happily working with the Feds to trace all the LOIC fodder. I just feel sorry for the FBI agents that will have to work with him.
Well I'm fairly sure that publishing photographs of (almost) any nature of a person without permission is in fact against the law.
Whilst there might be exception to the rule, something ala the press or authorities, I'm quite sure this is not one such case.
The partners who uploaded these photographs are also unlikely to have the right to publish these pictures, as most of these picture I imagine come with a "your eyes only" deal attached, and if not explicitly, then I'm fairly certain anyone would say that unless explicitly stated as "Also feel free to share these nudies with your friends or whoever", such pictures are implicitly private.
Furthermore not taking down pictures after being contacted about the issue, is also not permitted.
I therefore sincerely doubt that the "only possible illegal area would be if he linked to the wrong account".
As for the stupidity or not of sharing such photos with partners, I think you would be surprised. It might be some spicy up of the bedroom, or it might stem from having to travel a lot, but I think there are more people doing it than you'd think - but thankfully also more people not being dicks about it after a relationship ends, than you'd think :)
"In essence, he is no more culpable than those sites that put up pics of nudists or public topless sunbathers as pr0n."
You know, except that whole linking it to facebook profiles, real life people, threats to link it to maps to allow stalking. You know all those things that make it far worse?
Not that I'm defending other sites that put up naturist or revenge pics, but they at least don't mix harassment in with their obscenity. I'm not sure if it was this guy but there was a site that hit the news recently that did much the same, and replied to any form of request for pictures to be removed with a link to another site claiming to be a legal firm who would issue the correct takedown for a low, low fee of only a couple of hundred dollars. Pretty damn despicable...
No, it's certainly not illegal in itself to post pictures of people on the internet - at least in the UK.
"Well I'm fairly sure that publishing photographs of (almost) any nature of a person without permission is in fact against the law."
I'm pretty sure it's not, I think that's your first problem. Especially of folks in public places. If the pictures were taken by the person uploading them (who therefore holds the copyrights) then the site has the right to publish and whoever is in the picture has no rights at all, particularly not to get the pics taken down.
If the uploader was just a recipient of the image and not the original photographer then it's possible that a DMCA takedown could be legally effective, and a civil suit could be prepared against the uploader.
The only time I think this sort of thing would become illegal in the criminal (rather than civil) sense would be if it could be shown to be harassment. IMHO, IANAL etc etc
Make no mistake - this guy is a class A scumsucker, I'm not defending him in the slightest, I just think you have a charmingly naive view of the protections offered to you by law :)
Models and actors usually sign a "release form". I'm not at all sure what laws make this necessary (probably lots of different laws depending on the jurisdiction, plus careful taking account of laws that might be created in the future), but isn't it possible those same laws, whatever they are, might apply in these cases?
Of course, most "revenge porn" is about as authentic as most porn. The "revenge" story is just part of the fantasy for viewers who like that sort of thing.
Re: Legal situation
I was under the impression that release forms were more of a nicety than a necessity. Though if the site is US based it may fall foul of the necessity to keep records of the ages of the victims....
Meh, there's a whole mess in this area, evidently Senor Scumbag has managed to slither through the gaps well enough up until now.
I'm sorry to see the horrible state of the UK legal system.
I am, it seems, lucky to be an inhabitant of Denmark then.
Your reply prompted me to actually look up the law, and I found the rules - not for the UK so you are quite possibly right there.
In DK it is not stated to be illegal to upload pictures without consent, however it is defined as 'electronic handling of person-information' ("elektronisk behandling af personoplysninger").
As it stands there have been cases to deal with grey area.
There is a distinction drawn between situation and portrait pictures.
Situation: a concert, children playing, a zoo - those kinds of things. Essentially pictures where the purpose it to convey a certain situation.
Portait: This is the opposite. The pictures meant to portray a person or persons.
Now obviously one could argue that pornographic photos are portraying a situation rather than a person.
However it is stated that: 'The decisive criteria is, that the depicted person cannot reasonably feel put on display, exploited, or violated, e.g., for marketing or other commercial purpose. The pictures must thus be harmless' ("Det afgørende kriterium er, at den afbildede ikke med rimelighed må kunne føle sig udstillet, udnyttet eller krænket, f.eks. i markedsførings eller andet kommercielt øjemed. Billederne skal således være harmløse.")
Note: Datatilsynet is a government authority in charge the "persondatalov" (personal data law)
Oh - forgot to add that I'm fairly sure the use mentioned in the article counts as one where the depicted person can reasonably feel "put on display, exploited, or violated".
The copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer, not those photographed. You do not need to get their permission to take the photograph, nor exhibit your photographs, except when used in commercial advertising. That is what model release forms are for. So it comes down to who took the photograph, not who i in the picture.
You also have to question the stupidity of people that give their partners nude pics
It's called "trust". I know, I know, it's an old concept sullied by abuse, but such a thing does exist. This is how you recognise people with a backbone: you give them an opportunity to cause you harm and benefit from it and the DO NOT TAKE IT. To me, that's a mark of strength and character, versus the growing "kicking you when you're down" crowd.
Re: Legal situation
Model release forms: In general these are required when a persons image is to be used in connection with a product. As a photographer I tend to get blanket releases from all clients as whilst I technically can use the images I take in my portfolio, using them in my own advertising is less clear cut. If I take a picture of someone and don't have a release form (you can also need them for buildings as well) then I can still legally use it for editorial (think newspaper) purposes, fine art (art books, gallery displays or 'art' print sales) or in my portfolio. I couldn't flog it on shutterstock or getty.
Mixed in with this is the privacy aspect. In public spaces, excluding areas where there is an expectation of privacy (public toilets, changing rooms etc) I can take and use (subject to the restrictions above) images of you. On private property I cannot, it's prior permission only.
I'm not sure if the nudist beaches above would fall under an expectation of privacy or not, probably not unless they were private. All this varies country to country and how expensive your lawyer is. I tend to work on the don't be a twat principal which seems to have worked. Sending personal pictures to someone else and them distributing them is one for the lawyers to fight over. Personally I wouldn't, it falls under do unto others...
Re: Re: Good
"....as most of these picture I imagine come with a "your eyes only" deal attached...." An inferred contract counts for virtually nothing in court. Even a verbal contract - "OK, Jimmy, here's my boobs but don't show them around, OK?" - is still your word aginst theirs. If the twit has a habit of sending topless pics (or worse) to other partners then that sets a pattern for exhibitonism. A good lawyer will make the person in question look like a prime-time slut even if it is their first photo session. If you fall over in the kitchen and I make fun of you that's not illegal, it's your accident. As I understand it, if you send me a vid of you falling over in the kitchen without preconditions and I put it online (like the thousands of Youtube clips of funny accidents), and othes poke fun of you, then that is still not illegal. You would have to prove that the vid being up and available was damaging to you in a measurable way.
"....such pictures are implicitly private....." You would have to sue to prove that and remove the pics, just like the Royals have to whenever one of their moronic relations does something stupid and the paparazzi get snaps. As long as the pics were lawfully obtained (i.e., not stolen or hacked from a phone or website or intercepted) the only way to remove them is to make it vastly too expensive to host them, by lawfare.
"....Furthermore not taking down pictures after being contacted about the issue, is also not permitted...." Again, depends on your hosting company rules, and if you are hosting your own server than you make the rules. If the "owner" of the picture (the knob that got sent it) "donates" it to the site, they are granting free use. Once it is in the public arena it is just that, public material, and only the threat of legal action can remove it. If the knob that donates the pic is the person that actually took the picture then it's even worse as the "model" has to prove they had a contract limiting distribution.
IANAL, but in the US I belive you would have to prove invasion of privacy on grounds of public disclosure (revealing private details not of public concern) or false light (which is like defamation), or breach of confidence, which is kinda hard if you have willingly GIVEN the knob a picture of yourself which was then given to Mr Hunter. I can just imagine the court proceedings:
LAWYER FOR THE EMBARASSED: "Your Honour, my client feels the defendent has made public disclosure of details that are not in the public interest."
DEFENCE: "Your Honour, we believe it is in the public interest to reveal the character of Ms Dropemquick less she hides it from other suitors and lures a faithful and trusting partner into a deceptive relationship."
LFTE: "In that case, you Honour, we'd like to argue false light as this posed image does not recreate the loving aspects of the relationship."
DEFENCE: "My client states that Ms Dropemquick went like a train with many a party prior to himself, and it was her idea to take the pics. We are quite willing to subpoena her previous partners and drag her name through the mud if it please the court."
LFTE: "Then we wish to claim breach of confidence, your Honour!"
DEFENCE: "In line with her previous record of wild and unconverntional sexual antics [and remember, in court a lawyar will make out holding hands is "depraved"], my client claims Ms Dropemquick's partner that donated the pic encouraged the partner to show the pics to others as she got off on the attention. Unfortunately, no legal contract was entered into before the pic was taken, so my client simply has the partner's word and the fact we can make Ms Dropemquick out to be an amateur pr0nstarlet to aid us in reaching a decision."
JUDGE: "Hmmm, I can see I need to do some research into this website before I advise the jury. Clerk, bring a box of tissues to my chambers."
".....You know, except that whole linking it to facebook profiles, real life people, threats to link it to maps to allow stalking....." Actually not illegal UNLESS he explicitly said he was encourgaing a criminal act, i.e. the stalking bit. Otherwise none of the social media sites could link between each other. If you have made you profile public, and your home address is in the public domain, it is not illegal for me to link the two. You would have to show invasion of privacy, which would be kinda hard if it is you yourself that made the information public. Yes, Hunter is a despicable sh*t, but unless he advocates a criminal act he would seem to be a legal sh*t.
".... and replied to any form of request for pictures to be removed with a link to another site claiming to be a legal firm who would issue the correct takedown for a low, low fee of only a couple of hundred dollars. Pretty damn despicable..." Utterly despicable, but it still looks legal. IANAL, I would suggest you check with the Police or someone like the Citizens Advice Beareu if you have something similar in the States.
The irnoy is Hunter may be a complete knob but he is a legal one, and it is the Anonyputzs that seem to be encouraging, facilitating and taking part in committing criminal acts.
"Actually not illegal UNLESS he explicitly said ... "
Wasn't saying it was illegal, the point of that post was that the guy is a worse arsehole than some of the other bottom-feeders that usually post these pics purely for titillatory purposes and not as a way to expose them to friends and family, or enable stalking.
There was some debate about the 'legal firm' trick as to whether it could be classified as extortion. Still not sure if that was the same guy, mind. And either way, legality is moot, the guy's a slug, which is an insult to slugs.
Re: Re: Good - "trust"
".....This is how you recognise people with a backbone: you give them an opportunity to cause you harm and benefit from it....." Trust should always be balanced by caution and experience, and the ability to preceive the possible outcomes of an act of trust. Unfortunately, peer pressure also comes into play.
Example - I like dogs, dogs are usually sociable and I know from experience the signs that give away their likely reaction. So I would encourage someone to offer a dog that is showing sociable signs and not aggressive ones a hand to sniff to build trust. If the worst happens they can yank it back if the dog does switch to a warning such as growling, or they may get nipped and bitch at me. Not a big issue. But I would not suggest to anyone walking up to a dog they did not know as sociable and sticking their family jewels in its face, as a bite there could have serious repercusions for future family life! You might be completely unfamiliar with dogs but still think twice if I suggested trusting the dog with your family jewels because you can perceive the outcome could be very bad. Trust, balanced by caution and experience, and perception of the possible bad outcomes. And if you think comparing people to dogs is unfair it is. To dogs.
Now, a person may think "I can trust my partner with pics", and there may be peer pressure as in "hey, all my friends do the same for their partners, it's rad and cool", but it comes back to perception. The caution bit is you have to think of the motive of the other person and their likely behaviour - if it's John the Jock, who has had a string of girlfriends and is rumoured to give his buddies in the team all the juicy details, then a girl would have to be pretty stupid to think he wouldn't share a pic of what he obviously takes as a casual partner. Similarly, if John the Jock dates the local quiet girl then he has to wonder if she's also the local psycho when jilted. All fine and dandy to say things like "do unto others" and "put your trust in others" but that has to be weighed up against the possible outcome. At worst, ensure you have a means of mutually assured (social) destruction - if John the Jock wants pics of a girl then she should ask for pics of him, in a tutu with a banana up his rectum sucking on a cucumber, that she can hold for possible retaliation. After all, if he's trustworthy then why would he not agree....?
Trust is all warm and fuzzy, but MAD has assurances in the cold light of day. Don't like the idea of MAD? Then don't put yourself in positions where the dog can bite your family jewels.
When you're in love you do strange things, and what might seem like a sexy little present done in the heat of passion and love may, to the outside person, just be a nude pic of some chick. It may be always easy in hindsight, or if you live an embittered life, to say people are stupid to give personal erotic material to their loved ones - but it's a gesture of trust and faith, and it takes a real slimeball of either gender to post those pictures to the public, no matter how scorned you may feel.
You can also place the argument about large numbers of people going to it as a load of tosh as well. Firstly, I wouldn't put it past this scumball to be fixing his numbers, and secondly, it's one thing to come across something like that in horrid (or lustful) browsing - human hormones being what they are and all - it's another to be putting the stuff out there in the first place. On a parallel vein, there's always a certain amount of blame on the drug-taker, but it's the dealer I'd like to see put out of business.
Personally, I'm hoping Anonymous do whatever they can to this scumbag. I'll admit I'm not a big fan of the 'organisation' - such as it is, being a non-collection of unknowns, but at least in this case they're targeting the right sort - the sort who maybe aren't breaking the law, but are breaking most moral codes I can think of. The law was and still is not ready for the internet, and until it catches up I don't have a massive problem with shitbags like this getting what they are due.
It would be a different matter if it was based on hearsay or media stories - but this is based on a c*nt being a c*nt, and gloating about it.
Re: Re: Good
"......Personally, I'm hoping Anonymous do whatever they can to this scumbag....." What, besides give him lots of free publicity?
"....the sort who maybe aren't breaking the law, but are breaking most moral codes I can think of...." Pause for a second - the Anonyputzs like to claim they only hack sites to show up bad security, and when they post their exploits and take the Mick out of the website admins it's for the general internet-using public's good. How is that different to this guy? He shows up the stupidity of people that sext, then takes the Mick out of them when they complain - he's obviously doing a public service by exposing the social dangers of sexting!
Face it, if you disprove of Hunter then the Anonyputzs are just as bad.
So lemme get this straight...
Anonymous, who regularly post information (like names, phone numbers, email addresses, group affilliations, pictures, etc.) about men and women without their permission and link to their social networking profiles, are unhappy about a man who posts sexually revealing images of men and women without their permission, alongside links to their social networking profiles.
Irony, thy name is Anonymous.
For a group that spawned from a site almost devoted to the same ideals this is quite the definition of irony, though this guy does deserve all he gets it would not surprise me if he was spawned from said cesspool
"We will protect anyone who is victimised by abuse of our internet, we will prevent the stalking, rape, and possible murders as by-product of his sites," anonymous said.
"Just as soon as somebody posts a script for it." they added.
Anonymous protecting against bullying and the facilitation of abuse? It's like Jimmy Savile running Childline!
Or Broadmoor mental hospital!
"Our" internet. Lolz.
Shouldn't that be "lulz"
Anonymous just don't want anyone else trespassing on THEIR territory.
AC for obvious reasons
Given the several posts already mentioning the irony and hypocrisy, doesn't this highlight why vigilante justice is a bad idea?
doesn't this highlight why vigilante justice is a bad idea?
You're absolutely right, so I just started a new Internet group to fight it!
We call ourselves IRONY !!!
(I jest, but oh, the temptation :) ).
Internet Recourse On Nonvigilante Yogurt?
(Hey, Y-words a HARD)
Anonymous has more important things to worry about than some individual.
1. World war three breaking out, starting in the middle east, and expanind to include Israel, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Egypt, US, Russia and China.
2. Civil War breaking out, constant abuses of constitutional rights, and infringments on civil liberties have angered many.
3. Economic Collapse is unavoidable at this point, and spreading the word is high priority.
4. Attempts of the governments and the UN to take control over the Internet is a constant problem.
Well, notwithstanding the aforementioned irony, since they seem unlikely to actually be able to do anything meaningful about any of the four things you mention, possibly that's why they have decided to try and do something else on a more personal level, whether other people think it a good idea or a bad one.
Revenge Porn at your local licensed sex shop
Its a new genre - last night I watched one which was a piss take of Kill Bill called "Kill Dil-do", was really good!
Yes I know this joke is both crap and in bad taste but that's no reason to set anonathingy on my ass!
Popehat covers this story well
Please see Popehat coverage of what is going on here: www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down
Introductory synopsis on another blog: http://adamsteinbaugh.com/2012/11/09/synopsis-of-involuntary-porn-site-isanybodydown-com/#comment-275
We are anonymous
No one said we were intelligent.
The clueless chasing the unscrupulous
Anonymous, aka the ASSclowns are pissing up a rope.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know