TechSpot

Operator of 'revenge porn' website convicted, facing up to 20 years behind bars

By Shawn Knight
Feb 3, 2015
Post New Reply
  1. The operator of a once-popular revenge porn website that allowed disgruntled people to post nude photos of their ex-lovers online is facing up to 20 years in prison.

    Read more
     
  2. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,390   +329

    Googles owners could face life in prison due to child porn, rape, murder videos, pictures etc. or the fact that this article just goes to show anything random on your site could land you in prison for something thats not actually illegal?
     
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  3. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,149   +1,424

    That is just so pathetic...
     
  4. madboyv1

    madboyv1 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,333   +267

    I'm curious on what all the charges he was found guilty of, but too lazy to try harder than I have to find out what they were. One of them for sure was extortion, which by itself would include jail time, so I'm not terribly surprised overall.

    @Wasted kill: There is a law in the California books regarding "Revenge Porn" so I don't think it's exactly the same in regards to Google or any search provider (besides the difference of intent and a number of other things). Being that the owner lived and operated from the state only made it easier to apply said law against him.

    *shrug*
     
  5. Nima304

    Nima304 TS Guru Posts: 365   +81

    Identity theft and extortion. I understand extortion, but am not quite sure why he was convicted for the former of the two crimes. It's not like he pretended to be someone he wasn't.
     
  6. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,750   +1,105

    That's one reason Google and FB and Twitter and the rest have a small army of offshore saps to sit in a room and check all content before it gets through to the world. That.. and they know that no one will use their sites if they have to worry about the filth some people post.
     
  7. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 8,554   +2,894

    When did that law become law? And what were the dates in the article? Just to be clear, I want to make sure they actually overlap.
     
  8. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 6,490   +2,040

    A good thing he'll be prosecuted by the American justice system and not by the Islamic States otherwise he could have found himself in a err... fiery situation if found guilty.
    (I say this tongue in cheek of course)
     
  9. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,508   +498

    It's called automated processes, through algorithms, it's cheaper. And when something doesn't get rejected, users report it and voila, no army of "saps".
     
  10. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,181   +528

    Well everyone seems to agree on the extortion issue, so I will now state the other.

    Don't be stupid by sending nudes of yourself to other people.
     
    madboyv1 likes this.
  11. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,750   +1,105

    I'm not making this up... these moderators really exist. If you're smarter than FB, Google, Twitter and the rest, take your algorithm to them and you'll be a millionaire. The problem is, it's hard for a computer to know what a human would think is gross. It's so hard, they even try to hire people who've lived in America so they know the culture.

    A warning about this article... there are some descriptions of what gets blocked from the internet. And while they're not that graphic, they don't have to be to creep you out.
    http://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/
     
  12. madboyv1

    madboyv1 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,333   +267

    I see what you're getting at. From what I could find without finding the actual verbage, That law went into effect in October 2013. The affidavit for his arrest is here (or click on the affidavit link half way down this page if it doesn't work). Skimming through the affidavit, most of search warrants/discovery was performed summer of 2013, but there are references to IP/email logs and conversations with the site owner that date late october/november 2013. So my untrained legal eye wants to say while most of the investigation was prior to the law being put on the books, there is was sufficent evidence afterwords due to his association of ownership and operation.

    Also, at the bottom I finally got to see all the charges, and they state they were commited prior to October 2013 and earlier. So now I think the news media and mayhap myself have latched on to the "Revenge Porn" law erroneously?

    As for identity theft argument, I don't think it really matters if the owner of the site collected it himself, or if people submitted the information to him; it was more of the fact that not only did he keep that information, but had it publically available for others to use for damages, while he himself profited from it as accused through ad revenue and and paid image removals.
     
    cliffordcooley likes this.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...