7 ms·
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but I wouldn't do something like this for fear of falling afoul of anti-obscenity laws. For instance, the UK has a cyberflashing
by b800h 3y ago
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but I wouldn't do something like this for fear of falling afoul of anti-obscenity laws.
For instance, the UK has a cyberflashing law which allots a two year custodial sentence for sending a graphic image (by any means) with intent to cause distress.
- sh34r 3y agoI’m not a lawyer, but there are all kinds of extremely broad computer crime statutes on the books. No prosecutor would bring this case. This would flagrantly violate the spirit of the law, which was intended to stop unsolicited dick pics and other forms of targeted harassment. It would certainly not merit extradition to the UK, or the UAE for that matter. It’s not worth worrying about such extreme what-if cases. If the Feds were so determined to destroy an innocent person in a kangaroo court, there’s easier ways of doing so. They could plant CSAM on the server. They could coerce an informant to accuse you of SA (like they did to Assange). Realistically, the worst sanction this dev could reasonably expect, is to have their domain taken down. That’s what happened to the OG .cx domain, after all…
- ww520 3y agoAuthor is not the distributor of the image.
- b800h 3y agoThe UK law is a bit more subtle than that. Can't speak for other jurisdictions.
- kleiba 3y agoVery debatable.
- rovr138 3y agoI want to see this argument play out in court. He's the one specifically replacing one thing with another under some circumstance. Not the person embedding it or the one hosting the image.
- b800h 3y agoYep, I think the wording might be "caused to be delivered".
- Kapura 3y agoIf a man is using a telescope to look into my house to watch the football game, he does not get to be upset when I change the TV to weird inflation porn.
- b800h 3y agoIn a lot of jurisdictions, he does, especially if you did that knowing that he was watching.
- KittenInABox 3y agoDo you have a link to such a case? Genuinely asking because I want to know how the lawyers argue this in court without bursting into giggles from embarrassment.
- b800h 3y agoSure: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34483145 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34483145
- MerelyMortal 3y agoMaybe the article is slanted, but he sounds like an exhibitionist, not someone minding their own business.
- amenhotep 3y ago"in a place that can be seen through a telescope" is very different from "standing in front of a window clearly visible from the street" in a way that a court would, imo, not have trouble distinguishing.
- 3y ago
- dblitt 3y agoThe image is hosted on his site, so it seems reasonable that he is
- everfree 3y agoThird party site asks user's browser to request an image from the author. User requests an image from the author. Author says "sure thing", distributes an image of goatse to the user.
- hoistbypetard 3y agoAuthor says "sure thing" and instructs the user's browser to request an image of goatse from someone else. User's browser does so then displays the image to the user.
- plugin-baby 3y agoOTOH, people accessing the game through iframes may be in breach of the computer misuse act for unauthorised access to content.
- kolbe 3y agoVigilante justice might morally be justice, but it's still illegal
- jeroenhd 3y agoAnd I'm sure the British courts will rule in the author's favour when the lawsuit is filed, but that doesn't make flashing other users legal. Then again, I doubt someone is going to file a police report, especially when the URL of the page would bring the reports to an entirely different web page in the first place.
- michaelmrose 3y agoWhy would the US extradite
- rovr138 3y agoThe point of extradition is surrendering a person to another jurisdiction to face criminal charges. Why?, because that's what a treaty is. Ultimately it depends on what he's charged with and if it's found they can be extradited for it...
- jeroenhd 3y agoThe lack of extradition doesn't prevent the British courts from operating. It's not like you can escape punishment by just avoiding physically going to court. If you refuse to show up, you'll probably lose by default. How much impact that has depends on the relationship between the websites owners and the UK, but extradition isn't strictly necessary.
- sh34r 3y ago
- singleshot_ 3y agoSeems to me that the intent is to get people to stop stealing his IP, no?
- Chabsff 3y agoAnd, especially in the context where the same result could have been achieved as easily without resorting to law-breaking, how does that constitute a license to break other laws?
- singleshot_ 3y agoIf one element of the law that you are claiming that he broke is intent to cause distress and he didn’t have that intent, the elements of the crime were not present. This is not debatable as a matter of law; the only question of fact would be “what was the intent?”
- Chabsff 3y agoHave... have you ever seen Goatse? (If you haven't, please don't look it up just for sake of this and take my word for it) It's the reference example for what a "shock image" is. How in the blazes is the choice of that particular image over practically anything else based on anything but its capacity at causing distress? The blog post both acknowledges it as such, and even says "Let this be a lesson to you", making it clear that its use is specifically meant to be go beyond stopping people and actively punish them. And even if it weren't for that straight up confession, it'd STILL be patently obvious that this is what they are doing. We are in clear-cut "shotgun booby trap" territory here. As others have pointed out, there are subtleties at play over who is ultimately responsible, but the author's intent to cause distress is not in question in any way shape or form. As much as it's fun to see vigilante retribution like this (and boy is it!), that does not discount the obvious legal exposure at play.
- singleshot_ 3y agoSure, that’s the prosecutor’s argument. I think it’s a loser. I think goatse (I arrived on the internet in 1992 or so, so yes, I’m familiar with bothe the giver and the receiver) is somewhat conservative, actually, given the full realm of possibilities. I would be prepared to argue that to a jury in the right jurisdiction. I could convince twelve people who don’t care in New Jersey but probably not Mississippi. I’d be very surprised if any prosecutor thought they’d have a substantial likelihood of a conviction. There is a very high probability that this immature outburst would not be prosecuted or that it would plead to something like disturbing the peace if anything at all. Goatse is the internet’s way of saying “you don’t really want to look at this.” Hell, your parenthetical says as much.
- tempodox 3y agoSo stealing the app is OK but doing something about it is illegal? Sounds like the law all right.
- jtvjan 3y agoCould've made it a picture of a middle finger or whatever. Same message, but not at the risk of breaking obscenity law. That's not to say that Goatse wasn't the correct option in this case.
- Arch-TK 3y agoI'd say that regardless of what you do (aside from just blocking framing) you are likely to fall afoul of some UK law. Fun fact: UK law exists only to make sure that every person in the UK is guilty of something by the time they reach adulthood. It serves no other purpose.
- slikrick 3y agocompletely useless nonsensical comment
- tempodox 3y agoThe US have copied that shamelessly.
- FatCat1978 3y agoDo you have a loicence for that fun fact?
- immibis 3y agoThe difference is that they have money and lawyers, and you don't.
- rlt 3y agoYeah, it turns out you don't have carte blanche to enact any form of vigilante justice you desire.
- hyperbovine 3y agoAnd yet Goatse persists, a quarter of a century and counting...
- wetpaws 3y ago[dead]
- yieldcrv 3y agosounds like the sites with the iframe are liable as there is no cyberflashing on the source website, when you go to verify that how it ought to be, dunno uk law
- yungporko 3y agohuh, turns out i break the law almost every day of my life.