back to article Brighton perv cops community service for 'hacking' women's Facebook accounts

A man who hacked women's Facebook accounts to steal their intimate images has been ordered to carry out 200 hours' unpaid work after admitting three criminal charges under the Computer Misuse Act. The Worthing Herald reported that Kieren Kennedy, of Montpelier Place in Brighton, "caused a very significant level of distress" to …

  1. Khaptain Silver badge

    "He is now the subject of a sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) for the next five years and must attend the Horizon sex offenders' rehab programme."

    Hacking, or script kiddy password retireval, definately... he was bloody stupid to do what he did, but to be put on a sex offenders list for this crap....that's a bit much. I don't understand, which sexual offence did he commit ? If anything, he is a thief...

    And why the fuck do people store naked photos of themselves on Facebook....Storing on you own phone is already bad enough but storing on a damned public server......if it's on Facebook you have to consider that is public.

    The system apprears to want to make an example of this guy but I think it is a little bit overboard, except for the hacking part.


    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Allow me disagree, I do not feel that this is overboard. He 'hacked' the accounts to get to pics of scantily-clad women, that is clearly sexual in nature.

      It is also tremendously stupid because the Internet is chock full of pics of women in undies that he could have accessed for free and very legally.

      That said, I do have to agree that storing your pics on FaceBook and setting them to Private is very wrong. No one should consider FaceBook, of all things, to be a backup of any kind although, now that I think about it, I never have heard about FaceBook losing data. Hmm.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        I don't seem to remeber that looking at pics of scantilly clad women was a crime...and certainely no one thats put's people on the sex offenders list...

        Facebook is not a storage facility, it is a social media facilty used for "sharing" whatever.. Whether you click Private or not, Facebook have access to the contents.... this in essence makes things public..

        And because people don't use strong passwords or 2 factor authentication and as this example shows, people lose data from Facebook all the time....

        1. ratfox Silver badge

          I don't seem to remember that looking at pics of scantily clad women was a crime

          Without their permission? Yeah, that's probably a crime.

          1. Khaptain Silver badge

            "Without their permission? Yeah, that's probably a crime."

            I agree but that doesn't constitute a sex crime, that is theft..

            1. MJB7 Silver badge

              Not theft

              Definitely not theft. There is no intention to permanently deprive.

              Breach of privacy is more likely, and I agree - clearly sexual in nature.

        2. commonsense

          I don't seem to remeber that looking at pics of scantilly clad women was a crime..

          Having sex with a woman isn't a crime either, but doing so without their consent is.

    2. macjules Silver badge

      But what on earth is a "sexual harm prevention order"? Is it an order to cease and desist from repetetive wrist action in order to prevent excessive masturbatory RSI?

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        Copied shamelessly from :

        What Is A Sexual Harm Prevention Order?

        Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs) replaced the sexual offences prevention order. They are a measure available to the court to use to protect the general public or specific members of the public against serious sexual harm.

        The court can only impose such an order if they are satisfied that the order is necessary and that the order is made specifically to protect a person or sector or the public.

        A Sexual Harm Prevention Order can be made by the magistrates court or Crown Court at the point of sentencing for a sexual or violent crime, or following a complaint made about a person previously convicted of a sexual offence where their behavior suggests that they may re-offend.

        A full risk assessment of the defendant must be carried out before an Order is made, and once made, an Order will most likely be in force for several years together with separate requirements including a disqualification from working with children. The imposing of an Order will make the defendant subject to the sex offenders register, even if they were not previously on the register.

        Breaching a Sexual Harm Prevention Order is a separate penalty and carries a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.

        Draft proposals for these Orders should be prepared and submitted by the prosecution in advance of the SHPO hearing, something that often does not happen and requires assertive advocacy to remedy.

        A Sexual Harm Prevention Order may prohibit a defendant from doing anything set out in the order, but these requirements should only be made due to necessity and for public protection.

        There are restrictions on the prohibitions that an Order can impose, with disproportionate prohibitions such as not allowing the defendant to own a computer being unjustifiable.

    3. Teslahed

      He deliberately hacked accounts to get his hands on naked pictures of women that they would not have consented to giving him.

      It's a sex crime similar to how taking up skirt pictures of a women without her permission or rigging up a two way mirror in a bathroom with a camera would be.

      I'm actually slightly worried that anyone would try and suggest it's not a sex crime. But then people do do this sort of thing.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        We do not know what the purpose of him stealing the pictures was.

        Ok it might have been for a personal thrill ( Ok I will accord him the pervert stick in this case)


        it might have been to blackmail the victims


        to publicly embarrass the victims


        any other reason that we don't know about

        There are far too many variables in order to determine the nature of the crime. It's very easy to be part of a kangaroo court but it's also not very clever....

        1. Teslahed

          I have no problems with blackmailers who use sexually explicit material they've hacked from other people's facebook accounts going on the sex offenders register.

          If you are using material like this to publicly embarrass people; it's just another form of revenge porn. Again, stick people like that on the register.

          Ultimately a person's motives can never be proven, only guessed at, but their actions have the same effect regardless.

          I can't actually think of a single reason why someone might do something like this that I wouldn't then be happy placing them on the sex offenders register because of. Alleged motives count for less than the actual nature of the crime itself. Which in this case is sexual.

  2. William Hay

    Misread title

    Did anyone else read this as announcing that there is a "perv cops community" in Brighton that had a service "for hacking women's facebook accounts"?

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: Misread title

      It's the truncheons that attract them

      1. Korev Silver badge

        Re: Misread title

        And the handcuffs

  3. chivo243 Silver badge

    admitted to 3

    how many others did he actually breach?

  4. adam payne Silver badge

    ...He disclosed to his friend that he was able to obtain these images by accessing Facebook accounts...

    Why would anyone upload those kinds of images to the internet let alone bloody Facebook.

    As soon as they leave your devices you have no control over them.

    1. Korev Silver badge

      I was under the impression that FB filtered out this kind of image

    2. Chris G Silver badge

      "Why would anybody upload these pictures to Facebook?"

      They're Facebook users, what do you expect?

    3. Mr Sceptical

      Exactly that!

      "Why would anyone upload those kinds of images to ... ...Facebook." - what a world we live in!

  5. Lotaresco

    Lack of clarity

    Knowing some minimal details about what he did would be useful. The CMA seems to be loose enough that if someone were to access pictures via someone's profile that have privacy set to public without the express permission of the owner and makes/retains a copy that it could be argued that was illegal under the CMA at the lowest level "unauthorised access to a computer". OTOH if the court has established that he actively hacked the accounts to get private images that's pretty much business as usual. Not that this sets a precedent either way since it's a hearing in a Magistrates' Court.

  6. ma1010 Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Yes, he is a pervert

    If he just wanted to see naked ladies, as another poster pointed out, the Internet is full of free pics and movies, like xvideos or pornhub, or so I'm told (cough). But he went out of his way to get pictures of women who clearly did NOT consent to his "peeping." That's the sign of a nasty type of pervert. What he's doing isn't about sex. It's about domination and control. It's like being a window-peeper, a sort of behavior that often escalates to rape, so it sounds to me like the court did the right thing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yes, he is a pervert

      "It's about domination and control."

      No need to be a pervert to be tarred with that brush and just where do you draw the line between pervert and normal ?

      If porn mags and videos are legal, does that mean that watching hard core, extreme porn is perfectly normal ? C'mon some of what is available on the web, on legal sites, could easilly be considered "perverted" judging by the above criteria.

      1. Mr Sceptical

        It's the thin end of the wedge (ooh err)

        Nothing to do with this particular case, but to add:

        What consenting adults do to each other, even if not your cup of tea, should not be classed as 'extreme', 'perverted' (or other Daily Fail terms) if they did not cause lasting physical injury. Yes, the participants might walk like John Wayne for a few days, but it was their choice, so leave them be.

        The continued push of law-makers against private personal freedoms is something to be carefully scrutinised and resisted whenever possible - which I think most Reg readers do by default.

        Frankly, you see more 'extreme' and 'perverted' injuries during sporting events on live TV - won't somebody think of the children! ;-)

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019