back to article Revenge porn 'king' Hunter Moore sent down for 2.5 years, fined $2k

The so-called "King of revenge porn" has been sentenced to 2.5 years in jail and fined US$2,000. Hunter Moore was sentenced by a federal judge in Los Angeles on Wednesday, nine months after he pleaded guilty to hacking and "aggravated identity theft." He was facing up to seven years in jail and a $500,000 fine. When released …

  1. Steven Roper

    Sanctimonious much?

    True to form, when Brittain's association with Dryvying was exposed, he and the company started posting dozens of aggressive, accusatory tweets. What a fine, upstanding member of society.

    Well, if social-media vigilantes like you are going to hunt him down, expose him and harass the hell out of him wherever he turns, even though he's trying to turn over a new leaf and start an honest business, what is he supposed to fucking do?

    Ok, he did a wrong thing. But now he's trying to stop doing it and do something else. But when he tries to do a right thing, self-righteous vigilantes who seek to hound him for the rest of his life, expose his connection to the new business, and try tirelessly to destroy him are driving him right back into crime, because you're denying him any means to start anew.

    You and your ilk are not the fucking right hand of justice. You're a witch-burning, pitchfork-and-torch-waving mob, who collectively and individually represent the gravest threat to freedom and justice this world has faced since the Inquisition.

    1. Gordon 10
      Joke

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      Steven Roper is a witch too - Burn him!

    2. Richard Taylor 2
      Pirate

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      Live by the sword die by the sword

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      I'm torn on this:

      - On the one hand someone should be able to take their punishment, learn and move on. although there wasn't much information about what punishment he actually suffered.

      - On the other hand he has potentially deleteriously affected peoples lives seriously and for years.

      But, as you point out, preventing him from making an 'honest' living isn't going to help anyone.

      I miss the good old school days of black-and-white (no racial slurs intended) morality. Grey is so confusing.

    4. LucreLout

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      @Mr Roper

      even though he's trying to turn over a new leaf and start an honest business, what is he supposed to fucking do?

      He has every right to turn over a new leaf and to start an honest business. He does not, however, have a right to have his record expunged; it is a matter of public record. Do you not see the irony in a man who violated so many women's right to privacy complaining that his publicly available information is now being exposed?

      Perhaps if he'd spent a little time considering the impact such disclosures may have on his victims, then he would not now be reaping what he has sown?

      Ok, he did a wrong thing. But now he's trying to stop doing it and do something else.

      Yes, he is. That is what the law and society is entitled to expect from him, nothing more or less.

      self-righteous vigilantes who seek to hound him for the rest of his life, expose his connection to the new business

      The internet is forever. Do you suppose that just because his website was taken down (by force rather than decency) that all of the intimate pictures of women he circulated ceased to exist? Are his victims not continuing to pay a price for his actions? Then why should he skate on by?

      He chose to make those people his victims in the fullest knowledge that what he was doing was reprehensible at best, and would have devastating consequences for the women. He has no right to presume that any ongoing adverse impact of his actions should apply to his victims alone: he needs to dry his eyes and toughen up a bit. He's a self made man.

      His corporate ownership is publicly disclosed. There is no right to privacy of this information. even those of us without convictions don't have that right.

      are driving him right back into crime, because you're denying him any means to start anew

      No they're not. If people find what he did distasteful and feel he should continue paying a price for that, then they are within their rights to withhold their business from him. If they feel he has paid his dues, learned his lessons, then they are free to do business with him. Quite why you feel that should be any different is beyond me.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: Sanctimonious much?@LucreLout

        Well said..

      2. Suricou Raven

        Re: Sanctimonious much?

        "He does not, however, have a right to have his record expunged."

        He doesn't, being in the US. If he were in the UK he would, under Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. But he still wouldn't get the right until four years after completion of his sentence. We passed that act because we recognised that it's almost impossible for an ex-criminal to go straight if they are still regarded as criminal scum by most of society - no company will hire them, and if they can't find legitimate employment then they are left with no choice but to return to crime. The 'witch hunt' problem was recognised even in the seventies, and the internet has only made it worse.

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Sanctimonious much?

          @Suricou Raven

          He doesn't, being in the US. If he were in the UK he would, under Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. But he still wouldn't get the right until four years after completion of his sentence.

          The 1974 act has been replaced with one requiring significantly shorter declaration periods.

          However, that only provides a time limit for how long the criminal must declare their acts; It does not require the removal of their crimes from the public domain - in fact there are many databases of such information that exist. My employer validates any declarations we make with a 3rd party data provider.

          Also, as a victim of crime there is no requirement to decline to name your assailant(s) [1]. While it could be held that persistently naming and shaming them would adversely interfere with any rehabilitation they were trying to undertake, but that has to be balanced with the rights of the victim to talk openly about their experiences as part of their healing and coping processes. Running an ongoing advertising campaign may be frowned upon, but naming them from time to time when you're talking about the crime is legal. All criminals choose to commit crimes, while very few victims choose to be such, which is why it is difficult for the criminal to gag the victim for public disclosure purposes.

          The 'witch hunt' problem was recognised even in the seventies, and the internet has only made it worse.

          If I were to choose to name any of my assailants online it would likely cause them difficulties beyond the length of their declaration period. Unfortunately, there's not a lot they can do that will make me care about that. It's certainly not a crime for me to talk about my incident openly and with full disclosure [2]. The primary reason I've not is that none of them have yet attempted to make anything of their lives, so now is not the optimal time for disclosure.

          I've tried to find a reason to show them more consideration for their well being than they showed me, but I keep coming up empty handed. They chose this outcome of their own free will, I didn't, so there's no reason for me to feel bad about any consequences that befall them, or to protect them from society. As I said in my original post, those in society that feel their debt is paid in full will disregard such information, and decide if they want to hire those people, or do business with them, or not. It's simple and it's fair.

          I've hired people with convictions in the past and will do so in the future, though not those with convictions for violence or sex crimes. That is my choice and each in society must make their own.

          1 - not all crimes involve an aspect of assault but I'm struggling to find the right word so I've gone with that.

          2 - Even if it were, I could simply make any posts from America, to American web sites, where free speech is a constitutional right and no crime would be committed.

    5. kierenmccarthy

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      You should read Craig Brittain's tweets and his various other responses before deciding what my attitude is.

      Everyone does indeed have a right to correct for past mistakes. But it does require some kind of contrition if people are to be expected to forgive and forget. You won't see a lot of that from Mr Brittain, I'm afraid.

      I appreciate your willingness to stand up for someone who it is easy to attack, but I'm not sure it makes sense to do so without actually looking into the details. Or to ask for consideration while showing very little of it yourself.

    6. Triggerfish

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      It's a tricky one, on the one hand you are right, on the other he doesn't seem to be to remorseful and completly escaped a sentence due to the state he lived in.

      So on balance if being linked to his previous activities is effecting his new original idea of copying Uber, and getting investors (as long as it doesn't go further down the road to stalking, physical threats etc).

      I sort of think fuck him.

      Also his twitter picture my god.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sanctimonious much?

      Even politicians pretend to be sorry after a scandal.

      Correction - they ARE sorry - sorry that they got caught, not sorry for the nefarious activity.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sanctimonious much?@ Stevn Roper

      You're a witch-burning, pitchfork-and-torch-waving mob, who collectively and individually represent the gravest threat to freedom and justice this world has faced since the Inquisition.

      Boohoo, what a shame, how sad.

      The bloke is a cunt. He deserves to be hounded for the rest of his miserable life, for ruining other people's just for a quick buck. If it was your sister or your wife, or your daughter, you wouldn't me mouthing off that he deserves another chance and he should be left alone to get on with his life. If Brittain can never work again for the rest of his life, I would be quite pleased. And if he feels a shiver of fear every time there's a knock at his door, then that'll be good to.

      If that's the spirit of a pitchfork wielding mob, then get me a flaming torch: Let's march.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sanctimonious much?@ Stevn Roper

        "...he should be left alone to get on with his life."

        He should be left alone to get on with his life.

        Left alone in a tightly sealed basement. With a dim light bulb, a limited supply of food and water, and a horde of hungry ill-tempered rats.

    9. Turtle

      @Steven Roper Re: Sanctimonious much?

      "Ok, he did a wrong thing. "

      1) Well, I am impressed by how you don't even want to call what he did "criminal activity". Maybe you could stretch the concept of "a wrong thing" to cover the act of putting fraudulently-obtained intimate photos on the web - if he did it once and only once. But setting up a website as a business and putting up many such photos is not and then extorting money from the victim to remove them is not a "mistake". It's an "ongoing criminal enterprise".*

      *"It was claimed Brittain broke the law by tricking women into sending him their nude photos – by posing as a curious woman on the internet and offering to swap private snaps. He then posted their compromising pics on his website, the FTC said" - from the Register story at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/30/ftc_craig_brittain/ "To profit from his activity, Brittain promoted a separate takedown service: he would offer to get the pics removed if he was paid between $200 and $500, we're told.")

      2) "Well, if social-media vigilantes like you are going to hunt him down, expose him and harass the hell out of him wherever he turns, even though he's trying to turn over a new leaf and start an honest business, what is he supposed to fucking do?"

      What "he's supposed to do" is no one's problem but his own. And it is easy to see that your next gambit will be to tell us that not pretending that his past doesn't exist will be a reason for him to go back to his old line of work.

      3) Pay particular attention to the fact that he's calling the facts about his past a "baseless rumor". But even if you don't care about what happened to any of his victims - and it's pretty clear you don't - pay some additional attention to the fact that he obtained his photos by fraudulently misrepresenting himself and his intentions to his victims. And that is an important bit of information for potential investors and users to know. So even if you really have a vindictive and resentful attitude for women, you ought to be able to understand that.

  2. Mark 85

    Interesting Tweet

    I spent some time reading Brittain'sTweets... I think he's trying to clean up his act and go mainstream. Here's the one of the Tweets that says a lot:

    Craig R. Brittain ‏@CraigRBrittain · Oct 14

    Ranking of opinions a CEO should care about

    1. Investors

    2. Shareholders

    3. Employees

    4. Customers

    I think he'll fit right in with the rest of corporate America. Since the last item on the list is "customers", I think I'll take my business elsewhere.

    1. ratfox

      Re: Interesting Tweet

      Take care of the customers, and the investors will take care of themselves.

    2. The entire Radio 1 playlist commitee

      Re: Interesting Tweet

      There is also the law. I think CEO's are still required to look after the capital - i.e. the investors and shareholders money - by law. So yes employees and customers are secondary to that.

      1. small and stupid

        Re: Interesting Tweet

        Rubbish. CEOs cant steal or be grossly negligent. Apart from that its up to the shareholders.

  3. Mark 85

    Moore got off too easy....

    Guilty of hacking and "aggravated identity theft." and that's all he got? Really amazing... a mere slap on the wrist then.

    1. Old Handle
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Moore got off too easy....

      I still don't understand how identity theft even applies. I'm not at all suggesting he shouldn't have been punished. I'm sure he broke plenty of laws... It just seems like a weird one to pick.

      1. Lamont Cranston

        Re: "don't understand how identity theft even applies"

        I read (on Vice's Motherboard, I think) that he was presented with a list of charges, and decided to plead guilty to two of them. He's got of pretty lightly (the $147 paid to one of his victims is laughable).

        Despite Mrs Moore's protestations, I think I can say with a degree of certainty that Hunter Moore is a dick.

      2. TeeCee Gold badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Moore got off too easy....

        I'm quite sure he didn't get hold of the pictures he used from online accounts in his own name......

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: Moore got off too easy....

          I actually don't understand why he wasn't at least charged under 18 USC §1030(a)(2)(C).

        2. Suricou Raven

          Re: Moore got off too easy....

          It's called 'revenge porn' because it's submitted in revenge. No hacking is required - the photos are sent by the bitter exes, who were in turn sent or allowed to take the photos willingly by the woman prior to their break-up.

    2. MrDamage Silver badge

      Re: Moore got off too easy....

      Just wait for the civil claims to start, then we'll see exactly how much he' goin to suffer for his asshattery.

  4. Daniel B.

    Well...

    Imagine how much better the world would become if Zuckerberg, Gates, Andreessen and all of these other socialist losers disappeared.

    He's a right winger. That explains a lot. Only a right winger would think revenge porn is a good business model.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh I don't know, I'm sure that here in the UK members of the SNP would be very sympathetic to the idea

  6. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    i had no idea there were "revenge porn sites" I thought bastards had to find/choose their own entry point to the net. like facetube or torrents something.

    or does this guy just collect them up and offer them for DL ?

  7. Jonjonz

    What goes around comes around

    You reap what you sow.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    too little

    too late. I do hope he'll spend the better part of his life paying off his victims (for once I cheer absurdly high lawyer fees!)

  9. sisk

    2.5 years plus $2k in fines?? Didn't this guy make several hundred thousand dollars peddling revenge porn?? That's not even a slap on the wrist for what he's done. Well....unless his cell mate decides to make a little revenge porn with him. Then it might be a fitting punishment.

  10. TeeCee Gold badge
    Meh

    His mother spoke in court, saying that her son was "a good person who made a huge mistake."

    Nice to see El Reg following a well-trodden journalistic path here and including the pointless and utterly predictable quote from the mother of the scumbag.

    Just out of interest, has any scrote's mother ever stood up and said something like: "Well, he deserves everything he got as he's always been a piece of shit."?

    1. Wilseus

      TeeCee said:

      "Nice to see El Reg following a well-trodden journalistic path here and including the pointless and utterly predictable quote from the mother of the scumbag."

      But that's not the full paragraph from the article, is it?

      Fortunately, someone does still love Moore. His mother spoke in court, saying that her son was "a good person who made a huge mistake." That sardonic first sentence clearly conveys the quote in a different light!

  11. Yugguy

    Good person?

    My arse. A mistake is something you do in the heat of the moment. Not something you plan, execute and then brag about.

    Utter twat.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fined only $2000? Makes you wonder.....

    makes one wonder which judge and prosecutor had angry exes. :-)

  13. Cynic_999

    Retrospective law?

    I hope I have misunderstood. From the article it would appear that he set up a very tacky website that may have harmed women but which was not, at the time, a crime. That website was closed down in 2012. A new law regarding "revenge porn" was passed in 2014. He has just been convicted under hat new law.

    Which makes it sound as if he was prosecuted retrospectively. I really hope I have misunderstood the situation, because prosecuting someone for doing something that was not illegal at the time it was done is way beyond repressive.

    1. tfewster

      Re: Retrospective law?

      Yes, you did misunderstand - He was convicted of hacking and "aggravated identity theft." It was another scumbag who was convicted under anti-revenge-porn law.

      But on the wider point - Just because something isn't legislated against _yet_ doesn't make it OK if it harms people. I'm glad they found something to convict him of.

      1. Cynic_999

        Re: Retrospective law?

        "

        But on the wider point - Just because something isn't legislated against _yet_ doesn't make it OK if it harms people. I'm glad they found something to convict him of.

        "

        It might not make it "OK" but it certainly should not make it a criminal offence. Otherwise we could start prosecuting shopkeepers who sold cigarettes and fireworks etc. to children who were not at the time prohibited from buying such items (amongst a plethora of acts that contravene one of the many thousands of new laws passed in the past 50 years).

        1. Daniel B.

          Re: Retrospective law?

          Which is why he wasn't convicted by the new law, but previous ones related to hacking.

          Nobody got convicted by the new law, unless they were still doing revenge porn by the time the law passed.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Topless pic = bottomless misery?

    Well-deserved punishment, but one does also wonder what kind of society it is where a woman's life can be ruined to that degree by making public a mere "topless" (meaning bare breasts) foto of her...

    No doubt there are truly nasty (when published) forms of "revenge porn" pics, but with regard to "topless", 90% of the problem would go away were it not for the hysterical and panicked fear of the human body... (Not) only in America...

    (To be clear: publishing should still not be allowed without consent, of course. But it ought not to be that disastrous for the woman if someone does it anyway.)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Topless pic = bottomless misery?

      Those were my thoughts... people shoot pictures of themselves (of whichever nature and degree of nakedness), sometimes purely for their own private enjoyment, or that of a specific other party. That material should not be of anyone else's concern.

    2. Suricou Raven

      Re: Topless pic = bottomless misery?

      The internet already has an effectively limitless supply of topless women.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This was his *criminal* trial

    He might still be liable civilly to each of his victims, if they decide to sue. And I think juries will award a lot more than $2,000 in each case, should that happen.

  16. Breen Whitman

    If girls are going to whore it up, expect consequences.

    "This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’ - Proverbs 30:20

    1. FozzyBear
      FAIL

      Breen Whitman

      Please slither back into whichever dank, mouldy rotting crevice you crawling out from to make that comment

  17. Soap Distant

    @ Breen Whitman

    You are a troll. You will shortly be removed to your usual bridge of residence. Please remain there indefinitely.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon