“Involuntary porn” site tests the boundaries of legal extortion
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Only after Randazza and White started poking at "David Blade" did the offering suddenly change to "Takedown Hammer", no lawyers involved.
As I understand it, Randazza and White now have email exchanges between the "people" operating IsAnyoneDown and the takedown lawyer and some of their victims; actual money has changed hands over this.
Ken White, who is an attorney and former prosecutor, lays out a pretty compelling case for wire fraud on Popehat.
I can't tell you how many friends have come up to me with some idea for some great scam on the internet (usually just as a joke) that they think would be legal.
People readily forget that when you accept monetary transfers over the internet you still leave yourself open to wire fraud, which rather defeats the purpose of housing your scam on the internet.
Edit: If I'm not mistaken, they often use wire fraud to go after child pornographers. Could there be a precedent set there that could effect this case?
If the site offers accept money under color of an "independent" scrubbing service, or as lawyers when they are not, they are even more exposed to wire fraud. Fraud is easy: it's a knowingly made false statement of material fact ("I am a lawyer", "this scrubbing service is independent") made with the intent to deceive a victim who could reasonably rely on that statement (ie, "oh, you're independent, I'll pay you" as opposed to "oh, the sky is polka dot orange, I'll pay you") into taking some action against their will.
People do what they are familiar with and can wrap their hands around.
The typical guy who runs the local pizza shop or small import export business does not evaluate what is the best way to earn money for their time and energy after carefully assessing their abilities and advantages in a methodical way. They do what they can wrap their hands around and get done. Something they feel comfortable with.
I don't think it's good to confuse intelligence with what someone uses their time for. Or ends up doing.
In the battle of idiots vs morons, only the lawyers win.
A business doesn't have to be sustainable to be profitable.
* The operators of the site ostensibly don't publish the images (though they may be); the users of the site do.
* The site itself isn't ostensibly "commercial"; you also don't need a model release to post an image of your friends to Facebook.
* The remedies for unauthorized use of a model's likeness are all civil and involve suing and coming up with a number for damages, which is an extremely arduous process.
How is that even the case? If the site turns a profit for anyone (or if run as a non-profit that allows the owner to collect a salary), it should be considered "commercial".
Model release forms (if those are what they sound like) unambiguously state that what is going on is agreed upon and the company has the right to post the picture for their own profit. (And hence is unambiguously legal)
Without credibility humiliation would be very difficult.
Also, where are the anonymous vigilantes who target child porn?
I think it was especially smart of these business geniuses to antagonize the former prosecutor who has decided to make a hobby out of destroying their lives.
The brain surgeons gave back a big middle finger.
It just seems like another one will pop up and you will be playing wack-a-mole with a rather long and expensive sounding process no?
Not for a lawyer (the one doing the pro bono representation) who may very well be doing this for the publicity value of taking on the cause. (Not to mention the time and effort it would take to pull off that strategy. And you'd have to find the info to post and make up fake info which would most likely violate something in the process).
If that's the case, it may work.
Then what? Innocent people get to have their genitals spread across the internet? And sure, some of them put themselves in a situation where they were irresponsible. I don't think that should leave them with no legal recourse if someone is committing de facto extortion against them. If that were the case people would basically be left to take the law into their own hands.
And I don't. It might be illegal and it might not be. This is one more incidence where the ubiquity of technology in our world is creating a situation that is morally clear but potentially legally vague.
(Randazza had a back-and-forth with "David Blade", who was as it turns out almost certainly not a lawyer, which is something a real lawyer can pretty quickly tell with a couple of questions, like, "why aren't you registered in the state you claim to practice in" and others).
Probably because it's so open and shut. If the people running the site have gotten someone to send them money, it's essentially game over.
Notice how we are all (me included) willing to jump to a conclusion knowing only what we read in an article.
As I like to say there is a reason trials take a long time. Details matter and we don't have all the details. That said it looks pretty clear cut to me based on the facts presented as well!
There's always a veil of uncertainty over these kinds of stories, but let's just say that in this case, the veil is especially thin.
Extortion is many times a matter how something is framed though. Lawyers do this frequently with "demand" letters worded carefully to achieve their purpose but avoid appearing to extort a settlement on their clients behalf.
Extortion is more a "if you don't, then I'll" as opposed to "if you don't" (and you let the other person come to to the obvious conclusion.)