"Revenge Porn" founder sentenced to 18 years in prison (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- A San Diego man who operated a "revenge porn" website and then charged victims to remove nude images and personal information was sentenced Friday to 18 years in state prison, the attorney general's office said.

Kevin Bollaert, 28, was convicted in February of 21 counts of identity theft and six counts of extortion in San Diego Superior Court for running a pair of websites that capitalized on the Internet as a forum for public shaming.

Jilted lovers and hackers could anonymously post nude photos of people without their consent, along with personal information about them, at a website Bollaert created called ugotposted.com. More than 10,000 images, mainly of women, were posted between December 2012 and September 2013.

People who sought to have the explicit images taken down were directed to changemyreputation.com and charged $250 to $350 to remove the racy content.

Victims included teachers, wives and professionals. The compromising photos cost people jobs, damaged relationships and led to one attempted suicide.

Bollaert earned about $900 a month in website ad revenue and collected about $30,000 from victims.

Bollaert's lawyer had claimed at trial that the business was gross and offensive, but he didn't break the law by allowing others to post the explicit material.

 

[rockaction]

In all seriousness, if the profit motive (which is total extortion and public blackmail) is removed, and one screens for stories about horrid treatment of men by these women, are we waving him goodbye?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

In all seriousness, if the profit motive (which is total extortion and public blackmail) is removed, and one screens for stories about horrid treatment of men by these women, are we waving him goodbye?

wat

 

[rockaction]

In all seriousness, if the profit motive (which is total extortion and public blackmail) is removed, and one screens for stories about horrid treatment of men by these women, are we waving him goodbye?

wat

Eh, it's pretty clear what I said, man.

Just saying "wat" in internet speak isn't going to do it.

eta* The more I think about it, the more you either don't know what "revenge porn" is, how it buts up against the First Amendment vs. violations of privacy, the balancing tests within, the history of the doctrines of extortion and blackmail, etc.

Wat doesn't cut it, dude.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

In all seriousness, if the profit motive (which is total extortion and public blackmail) is removed, and one screens for stories about horrid treatment of men by these women, are we waving him goodbye?

wat

Eh, it's pretty clear what I said, man.

Actually it isn't. We've been down this road before, Frost.

See: Your thread about The Onion and women's sports or whatever.

 

[FlapJacks]

In all seriousness, if the profit motive (which is total extortion and public blackmail) is removed, and one screens for stories about horrid treatment of men by these women, are we waving him goodbye?

wat

Eh, it's pretty clear what I said, man.

Just saying "wat" in internet speak isn't going to do it.

eta* The more I think about it, the more you either don't know what "revenge porn" is, how it buts up against the First Amendment vs. violations of privacy, the balancing tests within, the history of the doctrines of extortion and blackmail, etc.

Wat doesn't cut it, dude.

You're going have to come back when you're sober and unpack this...

 

[Raider Nation]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I gave it some thought and I used all of the skills I've developed teaching 13 and 14 year olds over the years.

Let's imagine the guy never blackmailed anybody.

Then let's also imagine that many/some/? of these women cheated/mistreated/broke the hearts of the men that posted said photos of said women.

Maybe that means he wasn't a bad guy after all and/or shouldn't go to prison.

Did I get that right?

 

[rockaction]

Okay.

I'll unpack it. I have had a ton of wine.

Is RN's implied point that it's great to have this guy in jail still his point if the guy wasn't using this as extortion with a profit motive, but instead was purely motivated by providing a way (through hosting a website) to get back at women that mistreated their men.

 

[Raider Nation]

Okay.

I'll unpack it. I have had a ton of wine.

Is RN's implied point that it's great to have this guy in jail still his point if the guy wasn't using this as extortion with a profit motive, but instead was purely motivated by providing a way (through hosting a website) to get back at women that mistreated their men.

Yes, though the extortion was the most revolting part.

 

[rockaction]

I gave it some thought and I used all of the skills I've developed teaching 13 and 14 year olds over the years.

Let's imagine the guy never blackmailed anybody.

Then let's also imagine that many/some/? of these women cheated/mistreated/broke the hearts of the men that posted said photos of said women.

Maybe that means he wasn't a bad guy after all and/or shouldn't go to prison.

Did I get that right?

See. YOU GOT IT!!!

Was it that hard?

 

[HughHoney]

Okay.

I'll unpack it. I have had a ton of wine.

Is RN's implied point that it's great to have this guy in jail still his point if the guy wasn't using this as extortion with a profit motive, but instead was purely motivated by providing a way (through hosting a website) to get back at women that mistreated their men.

You're damn near blackout.

Not to derail this train wreck but RN how real is BRCC in your opinion?

 

[Raider Nation]

It probably seemed like such a foolproof scheme when he was dreaming it up in his dorm room several years back.

 

[rockaction]

Okay.

I'll unpack it. I have had a ton of wine.

Is RN's implied point that it's great to have this guy in jail still his point if the guy wasn't using this as extortion with a profit motive, but instead was purely motivated by providing a way (through hosting a website) to get back at women that mistreated their men.

Yes, though the extortion was the most revolting part.

That's all I was asking, and the latter clause of your sentence was kind of my point.

Without the extortion, how do we view this guy if his motives are "pure"?

 

[FlapJacks]

I gave it some thought and I used all of the skills I've developed teaching 13 and 14 year olds over the years.

Let's imagine the guy never blackmailed anybody.

Then let's also imagine that many/some/? of these women cheated/mistreated/broke the hearts of the men that posted said photos of said women.

Maybe that means he wasn't a bad guy after all and/or shouldn't go to prison.

Did I get that right?

If somebody took my tax returns and gave them to you and you posted them here, knowing that I did not give permission to have them posted still makes you a bad guy, and I would think that there might be legal recourse for me....

 

[Raider Nation]

Okay.

I'll unpack it. I have had a ton of wine.

Is RN's implied point that it's great to have this guy in jail still his point if the guy wasn't using this as extortion with a profit motive, but instead was purely motivated by providing a way (through hosting a website) to get back at women that mistreated their men.

You're damn near blackout.

Not to derail this train wreck but RN how real is BRCC in your opinion?

Not real in the least. Same with ECG. They are paid models going there to ####.

 

[rockaction]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

 

[Raider Nation]

He's a dirtbag either way. But the extortion angle primarily earned him the derision. Just imagine if he was asking your sister or niece to fork over the money.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Countdown to rockaction insisting your inability to understand him is an Internet troll conspiracy.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

god lord

 

[Drunken Poster]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

The extortion and profit motive is what makes it bad. Without that he's Jesus Christ

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

The extortion and profit motive is what makes it bad. Without that he's Jesus Christ

Pretty much. I mean the guy was providing a service, right?

 

[rockaction]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

The extortion and profit motive is what makes it bad. Without that he's Jesus Christ

Oh, c'mon. That seems like a false choice. I'm not saying the guy is the greatest, but our perception of people who blackmail and extort by violating people's privacy is even lower than someone who just violates privacy. The privacy violator is a creep, the blackmailer and extortionist an opportunist of the worst sort.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

And I used to think I needed to install a breathalyzier on my keyboard...

 

[Drunken Poster]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

The extortion and profit motive is what makes it bad. Without that he's Jesus Christ

Oh, c'mon. That seems like a false choice. I'm not saying the guy is the greatest, but our perception of people who blackmail and extort by violating people's privacy is even lower than someone who just violates privacy. The privacy violator is a creep, the blackmailer and extortionist an opportunist of the worst sort.

They're all creeps. Not sure you need to segregate them

 

[rockaction]

And I used to think I needed to install a breathalyzier on my keyboard...

Drawing a distinction between someone who merely violates common notions of privacy and one who does it for profit is cause for a breathalyzer?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Drawing a distinction between someone who merely violates common notions of privacy and one who does it for profit is cause for a breathalyzer?

https://simondeburghpt.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hammer_hits_nail.jpg

 

[rockaction]

Drawing a distinction between someone who merely violates common notions of privacy and one who does it for profit is cause for a breathalyzer?

https://simondeburghpt.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/hammer_hits_nail.jpg

I take everyone's point, but I'm not sure it's accurate. I'll link to this article by Lawrence Friedman, probably the most eminent legal historian today, explaining the reason why blackmail and extortion are especially pernicious in American society.

I had to read this book and thesis back in '08. For anyone interested, enjoy.

http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/law_friedman.pdf

 

[dparker713]

I gave it some thought and I used all of the skills I've developed teaching 13 and 14 year olds over the years.

Let's imagine the guy never blackmailed anybody.

Then let's also imagine that many/some/? of these women cheated/mistreated/broke the hearts of the men that posted said photos of said women.

Maybe that means he wasn't a bad guy after all and/or shouldn't go to prison.

Did I get that right?

If somebody took my tax returns and gave them to you and you posted them here, knowing that I did not give permission to have them posted still makes you a bad guy, and I would think that there might be legal recourse for me....

Its more like if some non-professional prepared your tax returns with permission and then some time in the future they decided to hand those tax returns to Joe Bryant. Joe then posted them on the footballguys website and made ad revenue off the page views.

It's your information/likeness. It's their work product/work of art. They're not receiving remuneration or any compensation really. Regardless of whether the publisher is right or wrong, its not exactly cut and dry as to who does/should have control over the publication of the information/likeness in these situations.

 

[msommer]

Where will Bubba be able to post his homemade pr0n when Kevin eventually leaves him?

 

[fdas2]

Okay.

I'll unpack it. I have had a ton of wine.

Is RN's implied point that it's great to have this guy in jail still his point if the guy wasn't using this as extortion with a profit motive, but instead was purely motivated by providing a way (through hosting a website) to get back at women that mistreated their men.

You're damn near blackout.Not to derail this train wreck but RN how real is BRCC in your opinion?

Not real in the least. Same with ECG. They are paid models going there to ####.

What about PECOTA?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

The extortion and profit motive is what makes it bad. Without that he's Jesus Christ

Oh, c'mon. That seems like a false choice. I'm not saying the guy is the greatest, but our perception of people who blackmail and extort by violating people's privacy is even lower than someone who just violates privacy. The privacy violator is a creep, the blackmailer and extortionist an opportunist of the worst sort.

They're all creeps. Not sure you need to segregate them

In case you haven't been into the Indiana threads, segregation is kind of RA's go-to thing.

 

[Zow]

18 years is pretty ####### insane.

 

[massraider]

18 years is pretty ####### insane.

How much time can a guy expect to serve? When would he be eligible for parole?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

18 years is pretty ####### insane.

How much time can a guy expect to serve? When would he be eligible for parole?

The judge should have told him "go to this website, lowermysentence.com, and send me $350..."

 

[Zow]

18 years is pretty ####### insane.

How much time can a guy expect to serve? When would he be eligible for parole?

This is going to be specific to California law (or whatever jurisdiction sentenced him).

 

[Binky The Doormat]

And I used to think I needed to install a breathalyzier on my keyboard...

Amen to that. I will buy one from you.

 

[SIDA!]

Guy sounds like a major #####, but 18 years when people kill other human beings and don't get anywhere close to that? Seems crazy to me.

 

[chauncey]

Speaking of online reputation/extortion scams, there is a website out there that lists guys who allegedly have contacted escorts online. A friend of mine recently brought it to my attention when he received a text message with a link to his info on their website. Basically there are fake prostitute ads on craigslist and backpage that use your phone number to find your facebook profile. They then add you to the searchable database on their site and include your facebook pics, phone number, and fake screenshots of you soliciting sex. In order to get your name and info removed you have to pay $300. The site is run from India so there is no legal recourse.

tl:dr If you are looking for companionship online be sure to use a burner phone or make sure your phone number is not linked to your facebook account.

 

[Raider Nation]

Hell, I'd retweet pics of me solicting sex. I suppose it might be an issue for married guys though.

 

[rockaction]

Oh stewardess, I speak drunk.

I believe he's saying that many/most of these women probably deserved to be publicly shamed.

Nope.

I think what he's trying to say via backwoods English is that if this website was instead about women shaming men for not treating women well, there wouldn't have been any prosecution or problem here, and I believe he is implying the difference in the result depending on gender is unfair.

Also, no.

I'm in kind of a good mood. I was wondering if the extortion and profit motive aspect of it makes it so odious that our instinct is to wave him into jail.

The extortion and profit motive is what makes it bad. Without that he's Jesus Christ

Oh, c'mon. That seems like a false choice. I'm not saying the guy is the greatest, but our perception of people who blackmail and extort by violating people's privacy is even lower than someone who just violates privacy. The privacy violator is a creep, the blackmailer and extortionist an opportunist of the worst sort.

They're all creeps. Not sure you need to segregate them

In case you haven't been into the Indiana threads, segregation is kind of RA's go-to thing.

Child, please. Segregation is so far away from what I've been arguing.

And that ATO (we used to call the stupid fat frat ATO boys donuts - never won a thing, never get a thing, always losers) liking your post is priceless.

Julian Sanchez, a pretty tolerant guy, speaks on the issue, and calls your way of approaching it "stupid":

As I argued in Newsweek a few years back, the “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.

Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.


The point is that treating private discrimination as either a categorical wrong committed by troglodytes with no liberty interests meriting consideration or an utterly inviolable right of conscience, divorced from either historical context or practical consequence, seems like a stupid way to approach the issue.