'Revenge porn' operator gets 18 years in prison

[Onkel Neal]

Wow! Finally, some common sense and justice in this country.:yeah:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/index.html

The owner of a now-offline "revenge porn" website based in California was sentenced Friday to 18 years in prison, the San Diego office of the state's attorney general said.

Kevin Christopher Bollaert, 27, had been found guilty in February of six counts of extortion and 21 counts of identity theft. He faced a maximum of 23 years in prison.

Prosecutors said Bollaert created a website that allowed people to post explicit images of people without their permission. The site also posted personal information of the people in the pictures without their consent, Attorney General Kamala Harris said.

The sexually explicit material, primarily of women, was routinely posted by angry former boyfriends and ex-husbands, authorities said. It contained their real names and links to their Facebook profiles.

Bollaert created a second website that solicited payments of $250 to $350 from people who wanted to have the photographs deleted. Bollaert made about $30,000 on that site, the attorney general's office said.

[Schroeder]

Does that put him on the sex offender list? Would be poetic justice.

[Nippelspanner]

Hahaha, that miserable scumbag, he might learn about a completely new kind of porn as well now!

Shower revenge sex.

[CaptainHaplo]

Had he not been trying to make money to remove the stuff - he wouldn't be in a cell. Someone with a brain and no morals will end up reversing the money side. If the pictures are legally obtained, and the ex then wants to post them publicly, one could charge a fee to upload them. A really smart operator would include in the TOS that the person pictured could request, via link/direct email - to have the data removed. If such a request was received, the removal would be at no charge.

This would remove the legal issues for the operator. Provided of course that he didn't commit identity theft as well....

Note - I do not support such a morally reprehensible action, just analyzing the legal argument.

[Jimbuna]

An appropriate sentence, totally befitting the crime :yep:

[Dowly]

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Now what the hell
I'm going to masturbate to?


(Seriously though, good riddance.)

[Herr-Berbunch]

If you don't want nudie pics of yourself ever to see the light of day then don't take them in the first place!

This applies to everyone, including 'celebs'.

Whilst the site is morally wrong it's the uploader that should experience the full extent of the law. The guy was just cashing in on stupidity.

[Onkel Neal]

Oh, I agree, but to monetize a system of revenge and extortion, whew! That's pretty bad.

[AVGWarhawk]

Got to hand it to him for the entrepreneurial spirit but this is a bit overboard.

[GoldenRivet]

I have a number of nude photos of my ex girlfriend. She is a cute, petite red head with emerald green eyes

I would never post her pictures freely on a revenge site that would use them to exploit her.

:nope:

I'll do it myself

bidding starts at $5 each :haha:

[Jimbuna]

I have a number of nude photos of my ex girlfriend. She is a cute, petite red head with emerald green eyes

I would never post her pictures freely on a revenge site that would use them to exploit her.

:nope:

I'll do it myself

bidding starts at $5 each :haha:

Beat me to it....the punchline :)

[Schroeder]

I'll do it myself

bidding starts at $5 each :haha:
Is there a discount for bundles or a special Easter offer?:D

[Nippelspanner]

If you don't want nudie pics of yourself ever to see the light of day then don't take them in the first place!

This applies to everyone, including 'celebs'.

Whilst the site is morally wrong it's the uploader that should experience the full extent of the law. The guy was just cashing in on stupidity.
Do you also blame victims of rape that they have been wearing too sexy clothes?

Putting material like this, without permission, online or share it in whatever way, is a criminal act. Period.

[Buddahaid]

Oh, I agree, but to monetize a system of revenge and extortion, whew! That's pretty bad.

Sounds like the government to me.....

[HunterICX]

Do you also blame victims of rape that they have been wearing too sexy clothes?

Apples, Oranges.

Look if this was a case of some pervert who shot these pictures without the victim's consent or aware that they've been made and suddently being harrashed by it via blackmail that these pictures will appear online and stay there untill a sum of money has been paid then yes I would put the blame solely on the pervert.

Whilst probably most cases it was never the intent to have these appear online unlike some celebrities they where happily to make them on a device that can upload them to anywhere on the web or cloud which can be compromised.

Putting material like this, without permission, online or share it in whatever way, is a criminal act. Period.He should've been sentenced for extortion and blackmailing not for cases of identity theft as he wasn't the one who uploaded them with the personal data.

[Schroeder]

Apples, Oranges.

I agreee with Nippelspanner (he's German after all:smug:...oh wait...that has nothing to do with it....:88)). I think it's safe to say that the pictures were taken for private use only. The guys (and perhaps girls) had no right whatsoever to put them online.

Though I agree that one should always be aware of the risks of such pictures.

[Nippelspanner]

Apples, Oranges.
Not at all.
The law was broken, there is a victim and a perpetrator.
By saying "If you don't want nudie pics of yourself ever to see the light of day then don't take them in the first place!" you shove the guilt and responsibility for the crime/abuse/misuse upon the victim.

While my comparison sure is extreme, it still relies on the very same principles.

[HunterICX]

I agreee with Nippelspanner (he's German after all:smug:...oh wait...that has nothing to do with it....:88)). I think it's safe to say that the pictures were taken for private use only. The guys (and perhaps girls) had no right whatsoever to put them online.

So what point did you miss about me telling exactly that?
Didn't I say that the sentence he should've gotten was that for extortion and blackmailing instead of identity theft as he wasn't the one who uploaded the content and info about the victim?

Though I agree that one should always be aware of the risks of such pictures.

Reason I don't really feel pitty for the ones that have been put up there, unless ofcourse the pictures where taken without their knowledge or consent.

Not at all.
The law was broken, there is a victim and a perpetrator.
By saying "If you don't want nudie pics of yourself ever to see the light of day then don't take them in the first place!" you shove the guilt and responsibility for the crime/abuse/misuse upon the victim.

While my comparison sure is extreme, it still relies on the very same principles.

Yes the law was broken and you've got a victim and a perpetrator, you get the same with a DUI and a traffic accident with death or severe injury of a 3th party as a result.
But he comparison of a Rape victim and a victim of her/his own naivety?
No it doesn't stack up as being the same thing.

First of all you're responsible for all matters of your own privacy, if you do no want sensitive content you've created with your partner to go out on the web then do not create it. There's a whole campaign going on in the Netherlands for example to warn youngers to not do such a thing in the first place.

With a rape victim anything that happened to her is against her will and with no meaning or ability to defend herself from it. No blame can ever come to her. (or him in the rare cases)

This is where the victims of the above fall through if the pictures where taken willingly, they could easily defend themselves and could easily been spared from it by not having allowed for the content to be created in the first place.

[Nippelspanner]

But he comparison of a Rape victim and a victim of her/his own naivety?
No it doesn't stack up as being the same thing.
Where did I claim it is the same thing?
I merely noted that they rely on the same principles.


First of all you're responsible for all matters of your own privacy, if you do no want sensitive content you've created with your partner to go out on the web then do not create it.
The first part is right - you're responsible for your privacy, as for what YOU make public and what not - but not what others, partner or not, do with it.
If they invade/harm your privacy, they commit a crime, not you.
You again shove responsibility for a crime upon the victim, which isn't right.


There's a whole campaign going on in the Netherlands for example to warn youngers to not do such a thing in the first place.
So?
There are a lot of campaigns for or against a lot of things by lots of people/organizations/political parties - doesn't make it right though.
What's wrong with making pictures like that for whatever private purpose?
Nothing.
The illegal publication is the problem.
It is the very same fallacy as to tell a girl not to dress 'sexy' to prevent being raped/abused.


With a rape victim anything that happened to her is against her will and with no meaning or ability to defend herself from it. No blame can ever come to her. (or him in the rare cases)

This is where the victims of the above fall through if the pictures where taken willingly, they could easily defend themselves and could easily been spared from it by not having allowed for the content to be created in the first place.
No one is talking about the fact that these kind of pictures have been taken - but published without the OK of the owner/person who's privacy is going to be invaded (and possibly a life destroyed).

I can make as many dirty pictures with my girl as we want to but that doesn't mean I am allowed to publish them.

[HunterICX]

Where did I claim it is the same thing?
I merely noted that they rely on the same principles.

I've never questioned the Principles.

I'm merely trying to point out that one could've been easily avoided whilst the other couldn't.

The first part is right - you're responsible for your privacy, as for what YOU make public and what not - but not what others, partner or not, do with it.
If they invade/harm your privacy, they commit a crime, not you.
You again shove responsibility for a crime upon the victim, which isn't right.

None would have happened to you if they didn't make them.
What, you tell people that haven't locked their houses when they leave that it wasn't their responsibility either after it has been robbed empty too?
Also I'm not shoving the crime in their boots nor am I'm talking the crime right, I'm merely questioning their sense of responsibility and precautions they didn't took. If you allow your partner to take nude shots of you, on his mobile/camera and in his safekeeping you're a fool.

So?
There are a lot of campaigns for or against a lot of things by lots of people/organizations/political parties - doesn't make it right though.
What's wrong with making pictures like that for whatever private purpose?
Nothing.
The illegal publication is the problem.

Problem is that this digital footprint is hard to erase, once it is on the web it's not going to come of. Ofcourse there is no problem in taking the pictures but there is without thinking ahead of things that might happen to them....and if you don't like the idea if you give it a bit of thought...then don't take them.

It is the very same fallacy as to tell a girl not to dress 'sexy' to prevent being raped/abused.

If nudy shots aren't taken then none can be published thus it does prevent.


No one is talking about the fact that these kind of pictures have been taken - but published without the OK of the owner/person who's privacy is going to be invaded (and possibly a life destroyed).

No one is talking but it should be noted that it all could've been easily prevented, the guy would never be able to make money out of it, the pethathic uploader wouldn't have had his pethatic revenge and her life was all peachy.

I can make as many dirty pictures with my girl as we want to but that doesn't mean I am allowed to publish them.

No, but still I'd say it's foolish to create them in the first place if one is worried.

[Onkel Neal]

By saying "If you don't want nudie pics of yourself ever to see the light of day then don't take them in the first place!" you shove the guilt and responsibility for the crime/abuse/misuse upon the victim.




I would argue that it is the practical answer, not the legal answer. I do not agree with people who say the victims bear no responsibility in the crime, when they do things that make the crime more likely. That includes women who dress provocatively or get so drunk they don't know wth is going on. It includes guys who leave the keys in their car or motorcycle parked in a high risk area, and people shout racial slurs in a bar full of racially diverse drunks. Hey, use some common sense, ok?

Each individual needs to understand that their behavior can increase their risk. Does not mean that the operator who uploaded the pics or the one who extorted money to take them down is not at fault--they are.

[Nippelspanner]

Well, it seems that our perspectives just differ on that subject.
I said what I had to say in regards of that topic.