[Grizzly]

The title is very blunt. I have no other way of wording a correct subject for this topic. I do apologize.

Anyway, here's an article about a mom finding out that her kid's computer had been hacked and that pictures on that computer had been posted to the internet, and then that mom hunting down the people responsible.

it's one of those "People are horrible" and "people are awesome" stories.

[Lorric]

I just love these kinds of stories. Ordinary people who rise up against evil and win. Mess with enough people and you'll eventually mess with the wrong one. Let's hope they put this guy away for a long, long time, and that they find this "Jones", if it is even one single person, and get them too. I think she is worthy of being called a hero and a saviour.

[Aardwolf]

And here I was expecting something about the new stupid law British PM Cameron's come up with... and preparing to do the old "prohibition just drives them underground" spiel.

But I guess that's not what's being discussed here. Carry on then.

[bobbtmann]

Stephen Harper's government recently tabled legislation to crack down on this stuff. Apparently it comes with sweeping police surveillance powers, among other things.

[An4ximandros]

I am not sure how to feel about the whole thing.

On the up side, I am certainly glad that the people behind this whole thing finally crossed someone who had the gall to to strike back and snatch a victory.
On the other, I am pissed off that the whole situation was even given the chance to exist.

The whole ordeal reinforces my belief that the Internet is a Quasi-Ring of Gyges.

I certainly hope this woman's efforts do not loose momentum and lead to preemptive and damage control responses. The Internet has changed the world and the way society works down to its very roots. We need to make the law keep up.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I'm not sure how I've never heard of this before, but holy crap is this a disturbing practice. Glad to see people rising to the occasion (and Anonymous coming down on this guy was a nice cherry on top).

[Nuke]

i probibly would have handled it the redneck way (with a shotgun), but i suppose this will have to do.

[Klaustrophobia]

it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.

[deathfun]

i probibly would have handled it the redneck way (with a shotgun), but i suppose this will have to do.

This
Only since I don't have a shotgun, I'll have to settle with rifle

[Dilmah G]

it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.

Seconded. Good hustle, HLP, pretty impressed with the lack of sexist commentary so far. Would do ol' mate Battuta proud.

[karajorma]

it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.

I'm pretty sure it is. Just that no one in law enforcement took it very seriously. Almost everything involved would be a cause for a civil suit that would result in Moore living in the gutter even without the actions that are criminally liable.

If you really want to get Moore though, you only need to find a single victim who is under 18. Prison won't go easy on him once he has a prosecution for distributing child pornography.

[Luis Dias]

GO MOM! GO GO GO!

What a badass! The perfect mom to have in that kind of **** situation!

[Flipside]

Seems the 'professional life ruiner' can't take it like he gives it. The ultimate sign of a coward.

[The E]

Of course he can't. Sociopaths, and other people thriving on inequality, rarely are able to handle things if the tables are turned on them.

[Nuke]

it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.

Seconded. Good hustle, HLP, pretty impressed with the lack of sexist commentary so far. Would do ol' mate Battuta proud.

i would, but there is already porn of me (and somone's wife) on the internet, so i aint got no excuse.

[Colonol Dekker]

Be "leery"??? 

I hate idiots.

[Grizzly]

it disturbs me greatly that this isn't illegal.

I'm pretty sure it is. Just that no one in law enforcement took it very seriously. Almost everything involved would be a cause for a civil suit that would result in Moore living in the gutter even without the actions that are criminally liable.

If you really want to get Moore though, you only need to find a single victim who is under 18. Prison won't go easy on him once he has a prosecution for distributing child pornography.

From the article:

The consensus was that revenge porn was largely untested in the civil courts, while criminal laws were nonexistent, except in the state of New Jersey.

.

Then again, you are probably referring to the hacking people bit, but this particular practice of uploading sexual images (which were most likely taken with the consent of the subject) after a break up isn't, specifically.

[karajorma]

In addition to the hacking, the charge Moore demanded to take photos down could easily be spun as blackmail for a start. By refusing to take down images from hackers he could easily be charged with receiving stolen goods too. Basically there was quite a long list of things a creative prosecution lawyer could have stuck him with. How much would actually stick is another matter but probably enough to send him to jail.

[Grizzly]

Wait one. From This article.

Just as troubling was that publishing these nudes was a legal act. Is Anyone Up branded itself as a "revenge porn" site, encouraging angry exes to send, anonymously, their former partners' nudes. Many people did. So the breasts, penises, and asses on Hunter Moore's site were, the story went, supplied by avenging cuckolds, embittered former friends, and other people with scores to settle. Because this content came from third-party users, Moore wasn't legally held responsible, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the same powerful shield that prevents Facebook (or the Voice, for that matter) from being sued for what users post.

[Beskargam]

Of course he can't. Sociopaths, and other people thriving on inequality, rarely are able to handle things if the tables are turned on them.

My understanding of sociopathy (which came from something 'tutta posted a long time ago. Interesting circumstances for it to be relevant.) was that not all are bad and that they usually fall into two groups. Those that choose to follow the morality of society and those that don't. There is a higher concentration of sociopaths in first responder services. Request maybe not demonize them/make sweeping statement?

Sorry for off-topic. On-topic: Sometimes I am disgusted at my gender (Ironic I know, as I just made a sweeping generalization after I pointed out one above). If you wanna get your rocks off to stuff on the internet fine. I've done that, I don't think it'd be a sweep to say most men I know have at least once. However working for a business that does this hacking and posting violates every strand of morality I have. That is unconscionable. The mob who follows such a man as Hunter Moore on twitter and jeers at the victims is worse. But what I find most unconscionable is the individuals who fire the victims/refuse them employment or the friends who disassociate for circumstances outside their control.  That I truly do not understand. As an employer I would have asked the victim in question about the origin of such material. If it was hacking, then I would have offered my support and my apologies. If it was self posted (Which the article says does not happen often) or posted by an Ex then I would again offer my apologies and support. Whether a pic was given to the ex is not my business. It should have no bearing on my business. I do know what it is like to be the owner of a small business. I was the only manager of my families's small business for 2 years, and I pretty much ran it.