I have absolutely no sympathy for this A hole. He's just bottom-feeding scum.
'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 …
-
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2015 23:21 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 00:05 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 17:34 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 17:48 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 20:42 GMT 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.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 00:52 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 13:30 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 21:01 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 23:43 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 06:57 GMT 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
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 09:44 GMT 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.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 17:39 GMT 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?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 00:58 GMT 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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 12:58 GMT 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.
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 20:54 GMT 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.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 01:09 GMT 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.]
-
Wednesday 4th February 2015 09:55 GMT 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.
-
-
Friday 6th February 2015 11:42 GMT 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.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 3rd February 2015 22:36 GMT 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?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
