Relevant earlier responses
[Name Omitted]: Or for facilitating stalking and harassment? Because we live in a misogynist rape culture?
[Name Omitted]A reason to thank Anonymous.
Because it has been next to impossible to legally pin anything on him. People have tried. He’s also under investigation by the FBI.
The problem is that “internet freedom” has become more important to people than “internet safety.” What he did wasn’t really illegal – other users uploaded the information with a statement of ownership (just like file-sharing sites and the like) which meant HE didn’t invade anyone’s privacy, he merely published invasions of privacy. He also made a point of deleting anything as soon as a request was made. He is doing the exact same thing Kim DotCom is doing, except he is a sinner instead of a saint.
What he’s doing is deplorable. I’m glad he got stabbed. People like this shitwit piss me off. Unfortunately, under our current framework he has every right to do it. His only crime is facilitating an information exchange. I’m hoping that changes, or a bad FBI agent makes some shit up.
Yeah, I said that. I hope the good guys do bad things. In a perfect world, I wouldn’t, but right now I think this asshole needs put away and that would be the fastest way to do it. If he succeeds in his next venture, I vote for the death penalty.
Our failure to arrest him doesn’t lie in the misogynistic rape culture we live in, but that is responsible for his actions and the popularity of his site. Shit like this shouldn’t work, but because of the state of the world it does. Since the question is why isn’t he in jail, lets focus on what he’s done and see why he has been allowed to do it.
The allegation of giving out personal information, including names and addresses and phone numbers, isn’t exclusive to him. You can find that information through Spokeo, Ebay, Facebook (if the user is ignorant to privacy settings), retail websites, social networking sites, online phonebook directories, real estate websites and any number of other places. If they can do it, why can’t he, especially when the information is user-submitted? How exactly is what he doing different than what others do?
I don’t think he should be able to. Privacy laws, especially digital privacy laws, are much too weak. If someone publishes my name, address and phone number publicly without my permission, I should be able to curb stomp them. Like, that is some serious civil rights violating, in my opinion. Unfortunately, legally that is covered more often by state law than federal law, which means it becomes seriously ambiguous in the digital realm.
The problem is how privacy laws are written and how they’re litigated. Fortunately, there is a group of people pursuing a class-action lawsuit against him. I hope they stay it for the long course, because a decision on that case could define future digital behavior, especially where sexually explicit content is concerned, but that is still in the early stages. Keep your fingers crossed. He may just do prison time, yet.
NAME OMITTED – which laws are relevant to the topic? I don’t ask this to be combative I’m genuinely ignorant. I would love to know where to point to show that “facilitating stalking and harassment” is illegal. Right now, the best case I could build against this man with my limited knowledge of the law would be on grounds of “rights to privacy.” Is that federal, or applicable on the state level? Proof that he’s guilty of violations in multiple states could mean multiple prison sentences! It would be fantastic if the class action lawsuit against him currently results in a string of other potential lawsuits.
The Fourth Amendment can only work as an argument if we apply it to all cases, meaning that if we nail him for it then we have to nail everyone for it. I think that’s too difficult. That would mean implementing something like SOPA, and I think it better to litigate circumstances rather than provide a blanket the powerful can use for their own purposes. Essentially, I think that the only way we can use the Constitution against him would be to draft a new Amendment specifically concerning Right of Privacy, which I wouldn’t be opposed to depending on the language used. In the information age it could be monumental legislation. That’s a whole different discussion, though, so I’ll leave it at that.
I think two good arguments could be made that might be able to put him away at this point. First is appropriation – his website was designed to use private information and likenesses (photographs, videos and personal details) for advertising purposes (web hosted ad placement). He didn’t get “performers consent,” which means the “models” in the photos and videos never agreed to licensing. This is similar to the case the FBI are pursuing against Kim Dotcom. One unfortunate difference is that the case against Dotcom involves the offended parties being companies with copyrights, while this leech is using vulnerable, ignorant men and women.
The second argument I could make would be the tort concerning Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts because it fits all the criteria:
offensive to reasonable person,
not of concern to public, and
so intimate that publication outrages the public’s sense of decency.
This is the one I believe the current plaintiffs are pursuing. It would be nice if they win, because currently the cases I know that focus on this weaken rights to privacy rather than strengthen them.
Sorry that this is so long, but I genuinely hate that this is allowed on a variety of levels and I think it requires a lot of research to see why this is possible and how we can change that.
tl;dr Right! This guy should be in jail. Or in a small room with me and a golf club. I’m okay with either.
Found on a Forum is a series of articles based on different discussions the writer has had somewhere on the internet (often in The Why? Movement Forum). Being a writer for a web magazine and a long-winded ass, that content is often long enough to make an article, so why not? As such, remember that FOAF content should be read as a conversation and not a polished feature, and no editorial fact-checking was done before inclusion on the website. Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments!