I am not a Godaddy fan by any means, but I'm finding it difficult to ascribe blame to them for this incident. Godaddy lets people register domain names; it is not their responsibility to censor content.
GoDaddy is being sued because that's where the money is. Class action lawyers (and many other lawyers) are not trying to make the world a better place, they are trying to cash out.
That goes without saying, at least from the lawyers' perspective. I think it's possible that the victims are also just lashing out because the site would not exist if hosting providers refused to host it.
This is all to true in a lot of cases. I regret there aren't more organizations like the Center for Class Action Fairness who object to ridiculous terms where lawyers just "cash out", often leaving the class with very little.
Case law over domain names, domain registrars and such is very thorough. You'd be surprised how much regulation and existing cases concern domain names and registrars in particular.
In Texas, they might have more standing against GoDaddy than Texxxan.
Isn't that when there's a distinct naming concern, where a specific entity is target? JaneDoeNude.com or YCombinatorSucks.com are obvious. TeXXXan.com is generic, and an alteration of a word that describes 20+ million people.
Adult websites however are bound by federal law (18 USC 2257) requiring signed releases by all "models". Websites like Texxxan.com are in obvious violation of this, and bordering on organized crime.
The problem is suing both may cause the entire thing to be dismissed. (IANAL)
The requirement of a signed release doesn't seem to apply to user-posted content. The requirement applies to sites considered to be the producer of the content.
For example, if this requirement were enforceable against user-posted content, online adult personals wouldn't be legal. A little quick Googling finds me the Stranger's adult personals disclaimer: http://thestranger.selectalternatives.com/gyrobase/adult. According to 18 USC section 2257, you aren't considered a producer if you are limited to things like photo or film processing, digitization, distribution, an ISP, etc. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257). Similarly, IANAL, but it seems that adult sites have a certain amount of protection for user-posted content similar to YouTube's copyright safe harbor.
I believe this is their web hosting product being sued, not the domain registrar. While I still think there probably shouldn't be liability there, it's much more of a gray area than just a domain registrar would be.
Yeah, whatever you think of GoDaddy's conduct, making hosts legally responsible for their clients' content is exactly what we don't want to see.
(I think in this instance it could be argued they had an ethical duty to shut the site down after being notified, but certainly not a legal obligation)
As for Texxxan, if their business model was encouraging users to upload pictures of people in compromising positions without their consent and then charging for the takedown, it's just a shame the charges against them aren't criminal.
I think you could make the case that they had a legal obligation. Isn't this what the DMCA is for? You get safe harbour providing you take down content which is objected to on request.
This may be what the law says, but lets be honest: the DMCA has been used so many times when it is clearly not applicaple, yet nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it.
If you send a DMCA takedown notice when you know you do not have the rights to the content, you are liable for all legal costs and economic damages incurred by the defense. Diebold was a notable defendant in a false takedown case in 2004, for example [1].
DMCA is not what you think. She does not hold the copyright to her nude photos unless she took the photos herself. The photographer or the company that employs the photographer holds the copyright.
A valid DMCA take-down notice, may only be made by a rights holder.
Its not so clear cut. You have three rights: (1) a right to privacy, (2) a right to protect against defamation, and (3) a right to the use of your image to promote a product "only if the general public would recognize you". So only if you're famous.
This is Texas. Texas lawyers use a "fan the hammer" approach when selecting defendants in civil lawsuits, especially when the Internet and notoriety is involved.
I'd be totally in favor of this lawsuit if they hadn't included GoDaddy (as much as I don't like them).
But at least we can see once again how well the Streisand effect works:
> TEXXXAN.COM has currently been placed into MEMBERS ONLY MAINTENANCE MODE due to scheduled maintenance and updates. Normally this would be unnecessary but unfortunately the extremely large amounts of traffic to TEXXXAN.COM has caused overloads when performing scheduled maintenance.
I don't see any direct involvement of GoDaddy in this case. They provided a service, as did Visa and MasterCard. Should they be liable of the hosting content of their customers ? If they get convicted it would set a dangerous precedent because it would push them into playing a censorship role outside of the judiciary system.
My hunch is that the law firm behind the class action suit has added GoDaddy to potentially be able to reap more money from the case.
It seems like a DMCA takedown request should probably do the trick. As much as I think what sites such as Texxxan.com are doing is sleazy and classless, I don't think it should be illegal. We have to protect the rights of sites with user-submitted content.
Edit: Also, digitized nude pictures of yourself are basically always a bad idea.
What about protecting the rights of people to their privacy? The world does not live and die on protecting the particular business model of user submitted content. Their protections must be balanced against the existing rights people have.
Exactly. This has nothing to do with user submitted content per se. It's the type of content that should be regulated at least.
We shouldn't be able to prosecute revenge porn on the annoyed ex's blog (as long as he's hosting it himself, I imagine porn would violate public blog sites TOSs)
But we should be able to go after for profit, privacy invading sites that allow anonymous uploading.
This reminds me, why did Google Maps remove the faces from their street view? Only public outrage? or was there a law behind?
I'd be pretty comfortable with something similar to the DMCA takedown procedure, where a person can certify that they appear in a photo and that they did not give permission to publicize the photo. It would be fine if photos taken in public were treated differently. I do wonder if 'outdoors' would have to be public, or if there would still be grey areas (I think it would be fine to err in favor of respecting the wishes of the person depicted, but lots of people are pretty set on public is public, never mind wild changes in our ability to create and distribute recordings).
That it would be inconvenient for big companies that host lots of photos doesn't really bother me any.
It's considered general good behaviour to blur the faces of bystanders, license plates (and I know at least in the UK they attempted to algorithmically blur windows).
However, there are no laws involved (at least in the UK). The people involved are not the subject of the work nor do they have any reasonable expectation to privacy on the street. Windows were another issue and I do remember some outrage over it. Google said they were trying to blur it and people went "Okay" and then it died down.
I assume the majority of the pictures were taken with consent and trusted to a boyfriend, etc. If you don't like what your boyfriend did with the picture you sent him, file a DMCA request.
If the pictures were not taken with consent, then it's a law enforcement issue. Voyeurism, hacking, etc. are already illegal.
>If the pictures were not taken with consent, then it's a law enforcement issue. Voyeurism, hacking, etc. are already illegal.
It's a law-enforcement issue with the boyfriend. There's nothing in place to force a website to take these photos down is the problem. Perhaps there should be.
There's a big difference between "consent to take" and "consent to distribute and use commercially". I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that in this case it's more in the public interest to require models' consent to distribute (as in commercials and commercially-produced adult material) whereas in other cases (e.g. documentaries and news media) it's in the public interest to presume in favour of allowing the material to be widely disseminated
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too. People say: crimes should not be treated differently just because you use a computer to do them. I agree! If I was running a bar where I solicited jilted ex-boyfriends to send in naked pictures of women, and then plastered them all over the wall and purposefully profited from the business they brought in, then you can bet I would be charged with a crime! Acting in concert with someone else to violate someone's rights makes you liable in meat space, and the same should be true in digital space.
With your bar example what crime could you charge the bar owner with? It's a very sleazy thing to do but I don't know of any laws in the United States that it violates. If the ex-boyfriends took the photos than they own copyright to them and as far as I know the subject has no rights to them.
> ...then you can bet I would be charged with a crime!
What crime? I can't think of one that would apply.
> Acting in concert with someone else to violate someone's rights makes you liable...
This might be where our opinions diverge. To what rights do you refer? I think your right to privacy may be waived when you consent to have the pictures taken and sent to a third party without a written contract.
Your right to privacy is not waived just by disclosure. If I tell my girlfriend I have VD, and she e-mails my whole office that fact after we break up, that is an invasion of privacy and is not waived because I told her in private. If I announce I have VD at the office party and then she sends the e-mail, that's different.
Ms. Toups said she was “in a straight panic” for days after discovering the photos, and emailed the site’s owner to try to get them taken down. “They replied and said they would be happy to remove the pictures for me if I would enter my credit card information.”
Sounds like that sort of behaviour ought to be illegal to me...
That doesn't sound like the whole story, but if it is then their takedown request system needs to be fixed. I guess what I'm saying is I'd be interested in knowing what steps if any occurred between her emailing the website and her suing the website.
Of course it sounds like the whole story. Their business model is based on extortion, like several other sites. Usually they try top make the hosting and removal seem like separate companies, but this is entirely believable.
Forget the DMCA, a site hosted in the USA that hosts pornographic content without proper documentation that the models are over 18 is in for a world of hurt. We forget because there's so much porn online but these people operate on very shaky legal ground.
It definitely seems like a spray and pray tactic, suing the host, site and users to see what sticks. I actually have no idea if there's any law one way or the other about using someone's likeness without their consent. If I was in an embarrassing, nonsexual video, could I have it taken down on any grounds? That seems like it would restrict free speech excessively.
That said, I hope they find something to nail these guys for.
I suppose. But does every person in a video have copy right to it? For example, if I film a public street and put it on youtube, can anyone walking on the street take it down? Is there a test for a particular person performing some sort of act which is inherently creative, or otherwise the focus of the video, having more rights than say the extras in the background?
What I meant was, what, if any, legal standing does someone have for being in a frame of video. If there was prior case law regarding this, they would have established an objective test which granted copyright or some protection to those deemed 'critical actors'. This is all speculation, I doubt if any such test exists.
If it doesn't, the subject of videos and the extras in the background have the same standing. I don't know what standing that is. I'm just flailing my metaphorical arms hoping for a real lawyer to show up.
If you're a gun salesman, you can get in trouble if you sell a gun to someone knowing that they're going to use it to kill someone. You don't get in trouble if you just sell a gun that happens to be used in a crime. I think this is a pretty common sense state of affairs. In this case, if GoDaddy continued to host the site after being made aware of its nature, why shouldn't they be held liable for helping to perpetuate the crime?
Because GoDaddy shouldn't have the power to censor content hosted on their servers.
It is up to the courts to decide what content is legal, not the corporation.
If the site is legal, there is no reason to take it down. If the appropriate institutions decide that it is illegal they should take it down the moment the court order arrive and not a nanosecond earlier.
I don't think that a world in which corporations are allowed to be gatekeepers on their own is a good one.
So by that same reasoning, maybe the ISPs should all block access to this content, since it is via their service that the content is actually delivered?
ISP's have a special status as common carriers. Not everything reduces to the ISP scenario. It's just how the owners of a private toll road don't have any responsibility if drugs are shipped over them, but the owners of a shop where drugs are being sold out of do.
I'm not saying that you should be able to hold hosting providers liable for content they aren't aware of. I'm saying that hosting providers have a right to control the content that they host, and at the same time if they know about illegal content they have an obligation to address the problem.
But at this point the content has not been deemed illegal, no court has ruled as such. So the hosting provider has no obligation to remove it, doesn't matter how immoral it actually is.
1. This is a vile and cruel "revenge" - I can easily see the term cyberrape resonating with some of the victims
2. Whilst there is talk of criminalising this behaviour the current action is civil and I suspect that is where it should stay.
3. DCMA is not effective here - the victims probably do not have copyright to the images, and presumably gave consent for the image to be taken. There is probably a lot of wriggle room here.
4. Suing go Daddy (as a hoster not a DNS provider) is pretty much par for the course - hosters regularly get hosed with DCMA takedown requests as well as sites that are obviously criminal, godaddy probably has a whole department for just this sort of thing. All UK hosters I know do. It is unlikely goDaddy will be held liable but if the site was criminal they would be obliged to suspend hosting - so it is reasonable to include them in the case.
5. horrible stuff - the most likely outcome is some form of damages is found to exist for these victims, that means the whole "industry" can be sued based on case law, one site at a time. As for GoDaddy - quite likely they will not be held liable. I would not want them to be obliged to take it down unless it is criminal behavoiour. I would however not want to host with them
Bear in mind that Bullyville - who are behind the other lawsuit against a different revenge porn site that's mentioned in the article - have a financial interest in online extortion schemes in general remaining legal.
Last time I looked, the only apparent source of revenue for their entire network of sites was ads on cheaterville.com for various companies offering to remove your profile in return for thousands of dollars. Looking at the source code, the ads were inhouse and I couldn't find any information on how to place ads with them - so they've obviously come to some kind of private deal with the takedown extortion sites.
It's probably in their interests to get the porn extortion sites taken down too. They've managed to pick something profitable but not heinous enough to get negative media attention, and the porn extortionists are a potential threat to them.
Considering the blood lust bullying creates on here, I'm quite surprised to see so many people rush to the defense. This is nothing more and nothing less than a site profiting from and enabling bullying. Maybe if the victims were more sympathetic to the HN crowd...
Amateur produced, "self shot" and "ex-girlfriend" are the fastest growing and most profitable niches of porn right now. Just like HN has a huge population that comes out to defend content piracy, you'll likely see the fans of this fetish out in full force to defend it.
I haven't seen anybody rush to the defense of those behind the site; I have seen plenty point out that godaddy, while generally despicable, is not guilty on this particular matter.
And I have to agree with them on this -- exactly as much as I agree that the real people behind this are guilty and should be punished.
I think these sites are despicable. I do hope that she and others prevail. No, GoDaddy sshould not be a part of this lawsuit.
OK, that said, here's something I know I am going to catch rounds for, but I think it has to be said:
I learned a long time ago that you should treat everything you do with the idea that a million people are going to see it. This includes "private" emails, boards, newsgroups, site comments and, yes, pictures you take and post. Before you take a picture take a second to answer this question: Would I mind if a million people saw this picture tomorrow? If the answer is "yes", don't take it and don't allow anyone to take it.
I really don't get the idea of young women taking compromising, nude, partially nude or provocative pictures of themselves. Or worst, allowing someone else to take these pictures. Do they really expect them to remain private forever?
The woman who is the subject of this article is, at least on first inspection, a victim of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression. However, she holds significant responsibility for having allowed these pictures to be taken in the first place. Unless she was completely unaware of the pictures being taken, she, at some point, became an active participant --and the enabler-- in the sequence of events that led to this embarrassing situation.
I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is exactly as I stated above: If you don't think a million people should see your picture or read that angry or compromising email you wrote, don't take the picture and don't write the email. In this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to take lightly.
At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.
I really don't get the idea of young women getting drunk in bars. Or worse, going home with men they met that evening. Do they really expect to not be raped?
These women are victims of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression. However, they hold signifigant responsibility for having allowed to be raped. Unless she was completely unconcious, she, at some point, became an active participant -- and the enable -- in the sequence of events that led to her rape.
I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is exactly as I stated above: if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms. In this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to take lightly.
At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.
(seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried instantly)
POINTING OUT THAT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT HABIT OR VIRTUE IS NOT, IN ANY IMAGINABLE WAY, AND EXPRESSION OF APPROVAL FOR SOMEONE BECOMING A VICTIM.
THE TWO ARE SEPARABLE.
In most parts of the world, if I walk into certain neighborhoods while wearing a sign that openly insults a large segment of the ethnic population in that neighborhood it is highly likely that I will suffer serious harm or even be killed. Such an attack on my person is and will always be a despicable crime.
However, I had a choice to make and it was my action that provoked the attack. And, while I would not, for even a second, excuse or justify the attack on my person, in retrospect an intelligent person can only conclude that the decision was the catalyst and it was an absolutely moronic decision at that.
Now, you and other can go on believing that you are free to act as you wish, do and say as you want and that there should be no consequences to your actions. And that's fine. Go ahead and do it. Let's see how long you last. What I am talking about here isn't some kind of a higher moral ground. This is about the real world. Reality. And reality works like this: You do something stupid and you pay the consequences. Plain, simple, cruel and very fucking real.
The new way of thinking seems to be that you ought to be able to be a complete moron and not suffer any consequences for your actions. Nice thought. Not reality.
AGAIN: NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST SOMEONE MAKING A DUMB MOVE IS EXCUSABLE. IT IS NOT. BUT IT IS OK TO LOOK AT THAT PERSON AND SAY: "YOU MORON. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN?"
Yes, I am yelling at you. Snap out of it. Reality, in most parts of the world, is as I have painted it.
So if you have a little girl: Would you tell your little girl to go ahead and allow nude pictures of herself to be taken? And then, would you say: "Don't worry, they are not going to be published all over the internet no matter what".
Amen. It REALLY IS possible to be a dumbass and a victim at the same time. Many (definitely not all) of these women are clearly both. And now they may cash in on their poor life choices.
The problem is that even raising the point (at least in the way you did) that a victim whose only fault was being too trusting when she was young and stupid (imagine!) is partially at fault comes across as callous and serves no purpose. It's obvious she screwed up and undoubtedly regrets it. Also, it's obvious to anyone who reads the story that she should have been more careful.
So what's the point of making these observations? At best you may get a few head nods, but at worst you come across sounding a lot like the guy who says "I know she got raped, but hey, she was wearing a short skirt...".
I did not create a nexus of justification between the dumb move and the crime. Nowhere did I say something like that. Nowhere.
And nowhere did I bring-up horrible crimes such as rape. Other's made that up. Not me.
I focused on this issue of young one's taking compromising videos or photos of themselves and then crying foul when, through twists and turns, they end-up posted online to cause them grief. Let's not go one millimeter past that. I did not say anything whatsoever that has anything to do with rape or any other crime.
That's it.
Every situation is different. I know nothing about the details of the case. For all I know the boyfriend took pictures while she was sleeping. How could she be blamed for that? If that were the case though, he would have to be charged criminally as well.
I think what I said was that one has to assume that anything you say or do today might be seen by a million people. So long as you are comfortable with that outcome, then, by all means, do as you please. If you are not, then don't.
With regards to this serving no purpose. Well, if only one kid reads this and thinks twice before posting a dumb picture on Facebook or something of that nature the outcome is good.
> Do they really expect to not be raped?
> responsibility for having allowed to be raped.
That's the way you're going with it? It was their own damn fault? They were asking for it? They got drunk (yes it was stupid), had a one night stand (yes, stupid when drunk), so they totally had rape and humiliation coming to them (non-sequitur).
> if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms
Oggie boggie, fear everyone.
Hate to break it to you dumbass, but dressing provocatively doesn't have anything to do with it. You can be raped on the street in your business casual cloths. You can be raped at home without going out. You can be raped stopping for gas.
Women aren't asking for it, they don't do anything that allows it, they shouldn't ever expect it.
> (seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried instantly)
I don't know, why hasn't your post been relegated to oblivion.
I don't understand how you possibly missed the sarcasm (it's literally a line-by-line restatement of the grandparent), especially given that you quoted the final part. What on earth did you interpret that to mean?
This is a specific instance of what I could see being a generalized incidence of cyberbullying now and in the future. You take X confidential information from a person and host it on a website in exchange for blackmail money. Our laws are going to have to adapt to this at some point very soon.
To everyone objecting to GoDaddy being involved with the suit, this is how the US Civil Courts operate. If you are going to sue someone whom you believe is responsible for causing you harm, you have to take into account that they may blame the issue on a third party. It is better to bring in obvious possibly liable third parties at the beginning of the suit to save time getting to a conclusion of the case. Otherwise the case thrashes around in counter claims, cross claims and all other manner of pretrial non-sense. I'd bet a nickle that GoDaddy gets absolved fairly quickly on in the process, but I'd bet a dollar that texxxan would have tried to ascribe blame to GD later in the case had they not been in the initial filings.
Why should anybody be punished here? Girl takes naked photos, gives them to their SO and/or posts them online... but people should be prohibited from sharing what they've been given?
I agree, it's shitty and an asshole thing to do, but is it, and should it be, illegal? Don't share nude photos of yourself and they won't be shared with anybody else. Share them once and you must assume, like everything else online, that it's public. Assuming these are adults, does nudity matter? Should I be charged for posting pictures of that party the other night on facebook and not getting a release from each and every attendee?
Now people who are stealing private photos off of hard drives are another thing entirely and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And of course ISPs, registrars, and web hosts shouldn't be implicated in either scenario. The people who post pictures of people against their wishes are the issue here.
84 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadhttp://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com/
In Texas, they might have more standing against GoDaddy than Texxxan.
Adult websites however are bound by federal law (18 USC 2257) requiring signed releases by all "models". Websites like Texxxan.com are in obvious violation of this, and bordering on organized crime.
The problem is suing both may cause the entire thing to be dismissed. (IANAL)
For example, if this requirement were enforceable against user-posted content, online adult personals wouldn't be legal. A little quick Googling finds me the Stranger's adult personals disclaimer: http://thestranger.selectalternatives.com/gyrobase/adult. According to 18 USC section 2257, you aren't considered a producer if you are limited to things like photo or film processing, digitization, distribution, an ISP, etc. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257). Similarly, IANAL, but it seems that adult sites have a certain amount of protection for user-posted content similar to YouTube's copyright safe harbor.
As for Texxxan, if their business model was encouraging users to upload pictures of people in compromising positions without their consent and then charging for the takedown, it's just a shame the charges against them aren't criminal.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPG_v._Diebold
A valid DMCA take-down notice, may only be made by a rights holder.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/controlling-th...
There you go. Also as another commenter you need model release forms. You are the rights holder of any likenesses of yourself.
See also: Texas patent troll lawsuits
Once they started playing content cop, they lost that defense.
But at least we can see once again how well the Streisand effect works:
> TEXXXAN.COM has currently been placed into MEMBERS ONLY MAINTENANCE MODE due to scheduled maintenance and updates. Normally this would be unnecessary but unfortunately the extremely large amounts of traffic to TEXXXAN.COM has caused overloads when performing scheduled maintenance.
My hunch is that the law firm behind the class action suit has added GoDaddy to potentially be able to reap more money from the case.
Edit: Also, digitized nude pictures of yourself are basically always a bad idea.
We shouldn't be able to prosecute revenge porn on the annoyed ex's blog (as long as he's hosting it himself, I imagine porn would violate public blog sites TOSs)
But we should be able to go after for profit, privacy invading sites that allow anonymous uploading.
This reminds me, why did Google Maps remove the faces from their street view? Only public outrage? or was there a law behind?
That it would be inconvenient for big companies that host lots of photos doesn't really bother me any.
However, there are no laws involved (at least in the UK). The people involved are not the subject of the work nor do they have any reasonable expectation to privacy on the street. Windows were another issue and I do remember some outrage over it. Google said they were trying to blur it and people went "Okay" and then it died down.
If the pictures were not taken with consent, then it's a law enforcement issue. Voyeurism, hacking, etc. are already illegal.
It's a law-enforcement issue with the boyfriend. There's nothing in place to force a website to take these photos down is the problem. Perhaps there should be.
See: http://blog.internetcases.com/2012/05/21/social-media-legal-...
Specifically: http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/10/07/group-sex-photos-ca...
Disclaimer: this is not a legal opinion.
What crime? I can't think of one that would apply.
> Acting in concert with someone else to violate someone's rights makes you liable...
This might be where our opinions diverge. To what rights do you refer? I think your right to privacy may be waived when you consent to have the pictures taken and sent to a third party without a written contract.
This is common sense stuff.
Ms. Toups said she was “in a straight panic” for days after discovering the photos, and emailed the site’s owner to try to get them taken down. “They replied and said they would be happy to remove the pictures for me if I would enter my credit card information.”
Sounds like that sort of behaviour ought to be illegal to me...
It IS the story. This is their entire business model.
"their takedown request system needs to be fixed"
You are under the mistaken conclusion that these are legitimate businesses.
This is happening because such requests are ignored.
That said, I hope they find something to nail these guys for.
If it doesn't, the subject of videos and the extras in the background have the same standing. I don't know what standing that is. I'm just flailing my metaphorical arms hoping for a real lawyer to show up.
The suit makes sense but for godaddy. What is this war on the service providers lately.
It is up to the courts to decide what content is legal, not the corporation.
If the site is legal, there is no reason to take it down. If the appropriate institutions decide that it is illegal they should take it down the moment the court order arrive and not a nanosecond earlier.
I don't think that a world in which corporations are allowed to be gatekeepers on their own is a good one.
That is why we have court system and rule of law.
I'm not saying that you should be able to hold hosting providers liable for content they aren't aware of. I'm saying that hosting providers have a right to control the content that they host, and at the same time if they know about illegal content they have an obligation to address the problem.
1. This is a vile and cruel "revenge" - I can easily see the term cyberrape resonating with some of the victims
2. Whilst there is talk of criminalising this behaviour the current action is civil and I suspect that is where it should stay.
3. DCMA is not effective here - the victims probably do not have copyright to the images, and presumably gave consent for the image to be taken. There is probably a lot of wriggle room here.
4. Suing go Daddy (as a hoster not a DNS provider) is pretty much par for the course - hosters regularly get hosed with DCMA takedown requests as well as sites that are obviously criminal, godaddy probably has a whole department for just this sort of thing. All UK hosters I know do. It is unlikely goDaddy will be held liable but if the site was criminal they would be obliged to suspend hosting - so it is reasonable to include them in the case.
5. horrible stuff - the most likely outcome is some form of damages is found to exist for these victims, that means the whole "industry" can be sued based on case law, one site at a time. As for GoDaddy - quite likely they will not be held liable. I would not want them to be obliged to take it down unless it is criminal behavoiour. I would however not want to host with them
Last time I looked, the only apparent source of revenue for their entire network of sites was ads on cheaterville.com for various companies offering to remove your profile in return for thousands of dollars. Looking at the source code, the ads were inhouse and I couldn't find any information on how to place ads with them - so they've obviously come to some kind of private deal with the takedown extortion sites.
It's probably in their interests to get the porn extortion sites taken down too. They've managed to pick something profitable but not heinous enough to get negative media attention, and the porn extortionists are a potential threat to them.
Amateur produced, "self shot" and "ex-girlfriend" are the fastest growing and most profitable niches of porn right now. Just like HN has a huge population that comes out to defend content piracy, you'll likely see the fans of this fetish out in full force to defend it.
And I have to agree with them on this -- exactly as much as I agree that the real people behind this are guilty and should be punished.
OK, that said, here's something I know I am going to catch rounds for, but I think it has to be said:
I learned a long time ago that you should treat everything you do with the idea that a million people are going to see it. This includes "private" emails, boards, newsgroups, site comments and, yes, pictures you take and post. Before you take a picture take a second to answer this question: Would I mind if a million people saw this picture tomorrow? If the answer is "yes", don't take it and don't allow anyone to take it.
I really don't get the idea of young women taking compromising, nude, partially nude or provocative pictures of themselves. Or worst, allowing someone else to take these pictures. Do they really expect them to remain private forever?
The woman who is the subject of this article is, at least on first inspection, a victim of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression. However, she holds significant responsibility for having allowed these pictures to be taken in the first place. Unless she was completely unaware of the pictures being taken, she, at some point, became an active participant --and the enabler-- in the sequence of events that led to this embarrassing situation.
I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is exactly as I stated above: If you don't think a million people should see your picture or read that angry or compromising email you wrote, don't take the picture and don't write the email. In this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to take lightly.
At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.
These women are victims of something very cruel. Someone needs to pay for that transgression. However, they hold signifigant responsibility for having allowed to be raped. Unless she was completely unconcious, she, at some point, became an active participant -- and the enable -- in the sequence of events that led to her rape.
I talk to my kids about these issues whenever they come up. The message is exactly as I stated above: if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms. In this day and age being stupid can seriously affect the rest of your life and end careers. It's not something to take lightly.
At one point we have to assume responsibility for our actions.
(seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried instantly)
POINTING OUT THAT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS AN IMPORTANT HABIT OR VIRTUE IS NOT, IN ANY IMAGINABLE WAY, AND EXPRESSION OF APPROVAL FOR SOMEONE BECOMING A VICTIM.
THE TWO ARE SEPARABLE.
In most parts of the world, if I walk into certain neighborhoods while wearing a sign that openly insults a large segment of the ethnic population in that neighborhood it is highly likely that I will suffer serious harm or even be killed. Such an attack on my person is and will always be a despicable crime.
However, I had a choice to make and it was my action that provoked the attack. And, while I would not, for even a second, excuse or justify the attack on my person, in retrospect an intelligent person can only conclude that the decision was the catalyst and it was an absolutely moronic decision at that.
Now, you and other can go on believing that you are free to act as you wish, do and say as you want and that there should be no consequences to your actions. And that's fine. Go ahead and do it. Let's see how long you last. What I am talking about here isn't some kind of a higher moral ground. This is about the real world. Reality. And reality works like this: You do something stupid and you pay the consequences. Plain, simple, cruel and very fucking real.
The new way of thinking seems to be that you ought to be able to be a complete moron and not suffer any consequences for your actions. Nice thought. Not reality.
AGAIN: NONE OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT A CRIME COMMITTED AGAINST SOMEONE MAKING A DUMB MOVE IS EXCUSABLE. IT IS NOT. BUT IT IS OK TO LOOK AT THAT PERSON AND SAY: "YOU MORON. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WOULD HAPPEN?"
Yes, I am yelling at you. Snap out of it. Reality, in most parts of the world, is as I have painted it.
So if you have a little girl: Would you tell your little girl to go ahead and allow nude pictures of herself to be taken? And then, would you say: "Don't worry, they are not going to be published all over the internet no matter what".
Right
So what's the point of making these observations? At best you may get a few head nods, but at worst you come across sounding a lot like the guy who says "I know she got raped, but hey, she was wearing a short skirt...".
And nowhere did I bring-up horrible crimes such as rape. Other's made that up. Not me.
I focused on this issue of young one's taking compromising videos or photos of themselves and then crying foul when, through twists and turns, they end-up posted online to cause them grief. Let's not go one millimeter past that. I did not say anything whatsoever that has anything to do with rape or any other crime.
That's it.
Every situation is different. I know nothing about the details of the case. For all I know the boyfriend took pictures while she was sleeping. How could she be blamed for that? If that were the case though, he would have to be charged criminally as well.
I think what I said was that one has to assume that anything you say or do today might be seen by a million people. So long as you are comfortable with that outcome, then, by all means, do as you please. If you are not, then don't.
With regards to this serving no purpose. Well, if only one kid reads this and thinks twice before posting a dumb picture on Facebook or something of that nature the outcome is good.
That's the way you're going with it? It was their own damn fault? They were asking for it? They got drunk (yes it was stupid), had a one night stand (yes, stupid when drunk), so they totally had rape and humiliation coming to them (non-sequitur).
> if you don't want to get raped, don't go out, stay at home, and wear clothes that cover your legs, shoulders, and forearms
Oggie boggie, fear everyone.
Hate to break it to you dumbass, but dressing provocatively doesn't have anything to do with it. You can be raped on the street in your business casual cloths. You can be raped at home without going out. You can be raped stopping for gas.
Women aren't asking for it, they don't do anything that allows it, they shouldn't ever expect it.
> (seriously, how does victim blaming bullshit like this not get buried instantly)
I don't know, why hasn't your post been relegated to oblivion.
I agree, it's shitty and an asshole thing to do, but is it, and should it be, illegal? Don't share nude photos of yourself and they won't be shared with anybody else. Share them once and you must assume, like everything else online, that it's public. Assuming these are adults, does nudity matter? Should I be charged for posting pictures of that party the other night on facebook and not getting a release from each and every attendee?
Now people who are stealing private photos off of hard drives are another thing entirely and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And of course ISPs, registrars, and web hosts shouldn't be implicated in either scenario. The people who post pictures of people against their wishes are the issue here.
Flame away.