5 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoRight 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 agoHow 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 agoNo. 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.
- debacle 14y agoI 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 agoThat 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).
- danielweber 14y agoI've been following this case for a while (Ken's blog is great) and suggested extortion a few times, but they seem keen on pursuing the wire fraud angle. 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.
- 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 agoNot 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.