6 ms·

“Involuntary porn” site tests the boundaries of legal extortion

46 points by iProject 14y ago

praptak 14y ago
I have read of scammers messaging people about their "inappropriate" (wording deliberately vague) pictures allegedly found on the internet. Obviously they requested some payment before providing the exact details.
debacle 14y ago
That guy certainly looks like a douche, and what he's doing is probably wrong, but I don't know if that makes it illegal.
- mattdeboard 14y ago
  Let's just assume you're right -- you're probably not based on what I've read at other links in this thread, but let's assume. 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.
  - debacle 14y ago
    Right about what? I said "I don't know if that makes it illegal." 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.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      How legally vague do you really think this is? Running a fake independent takedown service to remove humiliating photos from a porn site is fraud and probably extortion under the plain wording of the statutes.
      - larrys 14y ago
        "Running a fake independent takedown service" 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!
        tptacek 14y ago
        No. In my case, I jumped to this conclusion after reading about this on Mark Randazza's and Ken White's respective blogs for more than a week. There are lots of details and bits of evidence that the Ars story has left out. 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.
        Evbn 14y ago
        And for a small fee I know a lawyer who can make the veil thicker...
        tptacek 14y ago
        Could have. Little late for that now.
      - debacle 14y ago
        I don't know the particulars of fraud as it relates to the website - I haven't read anything but the OP - but the extortion claim is difficult because the images themselves have value to the website. It really depends on the representation.
        tptacek 14y ago
        That sounds like a really good point. Wire fraud is what Ken White said, after he and Randazza came to the conclusion that "David Blade", the "independent takedown lawyer", was just a screen name for the operators of the site. (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).
  - larrys 14y ago
    "de facto extortion" 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.)
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Not really. Lawyers aren't guilty of extortion when the demand letter asserts a demand they are entitled to. They issue threats to redress a legal wrong, not to obtain a preference. If a lawyer issues threats based on non-defensible demands, the victim has cause to react with countersuit or criminal charges.
CaptainZapp 14y ago
Ken White has a lot of interesting legal comments on the issue on his Popehat blog: http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/ http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/
tptacek 14y ago
This article (innocently, I think) leaves out a pretty key detail regarding IsAnyoneDown: instead of starting up linked with a "Takedown Hammer" service, it was originally linked to a takedown lawyer, "David Blade", who advertised as an independent counsel with a 100% success record getting items taken down from IsAnyoneDown. 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.
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  Wire fraud was my first thought when reading the OP as well. 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?
monkeyfacebag 14y ago
I don't know anything about these sites other than what's described in the article, but how can they possibly guarantee that the exploited "subjects" are not minors? Shouldn't this be a legal problem for them?
- tptacek 14y ago
  If the site operators exert any editorial control at all, including accepting money in exchange for removing entries, then they are probably exposed to extortion charges, which is a felony. To extort a victim, you have to communicate a threat to harm, steal, or disgrace them unless that victim carries out some act (like paying you) against their will. 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.
  - larrys 14y ago
    A person doing this in a foreign country out of the easy reach of authorities in the US (for example) could get away with this though for quite some time until they (or Chris Hanson the Dateline guy) caught up with them though. It's not a sustainable business of course but it would be able to make money for a short time period.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      We're reading about this site because it's dramatically evil, not because it's especially lucrative. If you can find just one more brain cell than the two these guys collectively rubbed together to produce this site, you can find better ways to use an offshore web app to make money.
      - larrys 14y ago
grabeh 14y ago
So if they want to benefit from DMCA safe-harbor and the user-generated content defence, then they or the host would also have to remove content expeditiously following a DMCA-request, which rather nullifies the extortion element of the related site.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The subjects of many nude photos do not own those photos and cannot use the DMCA to get them taken down.
  - grabeh 14y ago
    Good point! Although that would undermine Randazza's proposal in the article to sue for copyright infringement, on the basis that the owner of the copyright photos has presumably granted permission to utilise the photos.
jhales 14y ago
Wouldn't a more effective strategy be to deluge the site (or make many similar sites) with nudes and contact details so as to destroy any credibility? Without credibility humiliation would be very difficult. Also, where are the anonymous vigilantes who target child porn?
- tptacek 14y ago
  That, or ensuring that they're imprisoned for wire fraud, extortion, and/or conspiracy. 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.
  - jhales 14y ago
    Sure, I am definitely just armchair quarterbacking to their actual results. 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?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      The goal here isn't simply to take the site down; it's to get the operators of the site convicted of felonies. If that happens, I don't think there will be any great rush to score a couple hundred bucks a month running the next version of the site.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Ken (and later Marc) even offered to take down all his posts and stop trying to get the jokers sent to prison. They just needed to close up shop, taking down all the photos and keep them down. The brain surgeons gave back a big middle finger.
- larrys 14y ago
  "Wouldn't a more effective strategy" 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).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
67726e 14y ago
Rather similar to those sites that take mugshots and the photographee's information and posts them online, and sometimes in print editions. In particular the site http://mugshots.com/ http://mugshots.com/ has a link to "Unpublish Mugshot" which in turns leads you to a "service" that will get your mugshot removed for a fee. Seems to me like legal extortion as well. Would be certainly interesting to see these kind of sites taken to court.
tomjen3 14y ago
Wouldn't it be a simple matter of finding somebody who could be underage and the call the FBI?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Is that an easy way to get Reddit off the Internet? Nope. Doesn't work here either.
  - learc83 14y ago
    The article alleges that the publishing processes isn't automatic and that they have some editorial control of the content. If that's the case, it may work.
drcongo 14y ago
Genuine question: If the subjects of these photos have no legal recourse, what is the point of Model Release forms?
- tptacek 14y ago
  A couple issues among many: * 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.
  - drcongo 14y ago
    Perfect answer, thanks.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    The non-commercial flag will come down quickly when the takedown hammer is shown to be a not-separate entity.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "* The site itself isn't ostensibly "commercial"" 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".
- SolarNet 14y ago
  Because the current legal environment the site's legal status is ambiguous. (And hence could be (and likely is in this case) illegal) 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)
vigilante 14y ago
If anyone is feeling particularly vigilante... the site is Wordpress served via Apache/2.2.22. Likely vulnerable to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris and other easy attacks.
- tptacek 14y ago
  That is to say, if anyone if feeling like making it harder for Ken White to arrange to have the operators of this site prosecuted, by all means, go do something illegal that the operators can then attribute to White and Randazza. Great plan.
pav3l 14y ago
This reminds me of the mug-shot removal service I read about while ago http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/mugshots/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/mugshots/
komlon 14y ago
I would happily hunt down the person that is allowing nudes of my girlfriend to exist online. No one has the right to display her body to the world.
rmc 14y ago
In the European Union this sort of site would almost certainly be illegal. The EU has "data protection law" which basically say personal information is protected and one needs the consent of the person to process and do things with it. You also must store in a legal protected way. You don't even need to get into complicated "does this or does this not count as extortion" malarky.
jack-r-abbit 14y ago
Besides the fact that no one really wants to see me nekid... stuff like this is why I try really really hard to refrain from taking pictures of my naughty bits. It has worked for me so far. You won't find me on one of those sites. :)

46 points by iProject 14y ago

I have read of scammers messaging people about their "inappropriate" (wording deliberately vague) pictures allegedly found on the internet. Obviously they requested some payment before providing the exact details.

debacle 14y ago

That guy certainly looks like a douche, and what he's doing is probably wrong, but I don't know if that makes it illegal.

mattdeboard 14y ago
Let's just assume you're right -- you're probably not based on what I've read at other links in this thread, but let's assume. 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.
- debacle 14y ago
  Right about what? I said "I don't know if that makes it illegal." 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.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    How legally vague do you really think this is? Running a fake independent takedown service to remove humiliating photos from a porn site is fraud and probably extortion under the plain wording of the statutes.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "Running a fake independent takedown service" 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!
      - tptacek 14y ago
        No. In my case, I jumped to this conclusion after reading about this on Mark Randazza's and Ken White's respective blogs for more than a week. There are lots of details and bits of evidence that the Ars story has left out. 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.
        Evbn 14y ago
        And for a small fee I know a lawyer who can make the veil thicker...
        tptacek 14y ago
        Could have. Little late for that now.
    - debacle 14y ago
      I don't know the particulars of fraud as it relates to the website - I haven't read anything but the OP - but the extortion claim is difficult because the images themselves have value to the website. It really depends on the representation.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        That sounds like a really good point. Wire fraud is what Ken White said, after he and Randazza came to the conclusion that "David Blade", the "independent takedown lawyer", was just a screen name for the operators of the site. (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).
- larrys 14y ago
  "de facto extortion" 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.)
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Not really. Lawyers aren't guilty of extortion when the demand letter asserts a demand they are entitled to. They issue threats to redress a legal wrong, not to obtain a preference. If a lawyer issues threats based on non-defensible demands, the victim has cause to react with countersuit or criminal charges.

CaptainZapp 14y ago

Ken White has a lot of interesting legal comments on the issue on his Popehat blog: http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/ http://www.popehat.com/tag/is-anybody-down/

tptacek 14y ago

This article (innocently, I think) leaves out a pretty key detail regarding IsAnyoneDown: instead of starting up linked with a "Takedown Hammer" service, it was originally linked to a takedown lawyer, "David Blade", who advertised as an independent counsel with a 100% success record getting items taken down from IsAnyoneDown. 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.

pdeuchler 14y ago
Wire fraud was my first thought when reading the OP as well. 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?

monkeyfacebag 14y ago

I don't know anything about these sites other than what's described in the article, but how can they possibly guarantee that the exploited "subjects" are not minors? Shouldn't this be a legal problem for them?

tptacek 14y ago
If the site operators exert any editorial control at all, including accepting money in exchange for removing entries, then they are probably exposed to extortion charges, which is a felony. To extort a victim, you have to communicate a threat to harm, steal, or disgrace them unless that victim carries out some act (like paying you) against their will. 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.
- larrys 14y ago
  A person doing this in a foreign country out of the easy reach of authorities in the US (for example) could get away with this though for quite some time until they (or Chris Hanson the Dateline guy) caught up with them though. It's not a sustainable business of course but it would be able to make money for a short time period.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    We're reading about this site because it's dramatically evil, not because it's especially lucrative. If you can find just one more brain cell than the two these guys collectively rubbed together to produce this site, you can find better ways to use an offshore web app to make money.
    - larrys 14y ago

grabeh 14y ago

So if they want to benefit from DMCA safe-harbor and the user-generated content defence, then they or the host would also have to remove content expeditiously following a DMCA-request, which rather nullifies the extortion element of the related site.

tptacek 14y ago
The subjects of many nude photos do not own those photos and cannot use the DMCA to get them taken down.
- grabeh 14y ago
  Good point! Although that would undermine Randazza's proposal in the article to sue for copyright infringement, on the basis that the owner of the copyright photos has presumably granted permission to utilise the photos.

jhales 14y ago

Wouldn't a more effective strategy be to deluge the site (or make many similar sites) with nudes and contact details so as to destroy any credibility? Without credibility humiliation would be very difficult. Also, where are the anonymous vigilantes who target child porn?

tptacek 14y ago
That, or ensuring that they're imprisoned for wire fraud, extortion, and/or conspiracy. 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.
- jhales 14y ago
  Sure, I am definitely just armchair quarterbacking to their actual results. 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?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The goal here isn't simply to take the site down; it's to get the operators of the site convicted of felonies. If that happens, I don't think there will be any great rush to score a couple hundred bucks a month running the next version of the site.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Ken (and later Marc) even offered to take down all his posts and stop trying to get the jokers sent to prison. They just needed to close up shop, taking down all the photos and keep them down. The brain surgeons gave back a big middle finger.
larrys 14y ago
"Wouldn't a more effective strategy" 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).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

67726e 14y ago

Rather similar to those sites that take mugshots and the photographee's information and posts them online, and sometimes in print editions. In particular the site http://mugshots.com/ http://mugshots.com/ has a link to "Unpublish Mugshot" which in turns leads you to a "service" that will get your mugshot removed for a fee. Seems to me like legal extortion as well. Would be certainly interesting to see these kind of sites taken to court.

tomjen3 14y ago

Wouldn't it be a simple matter of finding somebody who could be underage and the call the FBI?

tptacek 14y ago
Is that an easy way to get Reddit off the Internet? Nope. Doesn't work here either.
- learc83 14y ago
  The article alleges that the publishing processes isn't automatic and that they have some editorial control of the content. If that's the case, it may work.

drcongo 14y ago

Genuine question: If the subjects of these photos have no legal recourse, what is the point of Model Release forms?

tptacek 14y ago
A couple issues among many: * 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.
- drcongo 14y ago
  Perfect answer, thanks.
- Evbn 14y ago
  The non-commercial flag will come down quickly when the takedown hammer is shown to be a not-separate entity.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "* The site itself isn't ostensibly "commercial"" 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".
SolarNet 14y ago
Because the current legal environment the site's legal status is ambiguous. (And hence could be (and likely is in this case) illegal) 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)

vigilante 14y ago

If anyone is feeling particularly vigilante... the site is Wordpress served via Apache/2.2.22. Likely vulnerable to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowloris and other easy attacks.

tptacek 14y ago
That is to say, if anyone if feeling like making it harder for Ken White to arrange to have the operators of this site prosecuted, by all means, go do something illegal that the operators can then attribute to White and Randazza. Great plan.

pav3l 14y ago

This reminds me of the mug-shot removal service I read about while ago http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/mugshots/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/mugshots/

komlon 14y ago

I would happily hunt down the person that is allowing nudes of my girlfriend to exist online. No one has the right to display her body to the world.

rmc 14y ago

In the European Union this sort of site would almost certainly be illegal. The EU has "data protection law" which basically say personal information is protected and one needs the consent of the person to process and do things with it. You also must store in a legal protected way. You don't even need to get into complicated "does this or does this not count as extortion" malarky.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago

Besides the fact that no one really wants to see me nekid... stuff like this is why I try really really hard to refrain from taking pictures of my naughty bits. It has worked for me so far. You won't find me on one of those sites. :)