It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We had this discussion before: “Revenge Porn' Website Gets Calif. Man Charged with Extortion

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 04:46 PM

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A San Diego man was charged Tuesday with operating a website that let people anonymously post explicit photographs of others so that he could extort hundreds of dollars from the victims.
Kevin Christopher Bollaert, 27, was arrested by California Department of Justice agents on 31 felony counts of conspiracy, identity theft and extortion.
Bollaert created the so-called "revenge porn" website a year ago, according to court documents. The site let people anonymously post more than 10,000 nude and explicit photographs of others without their permission, investigators said.
Unlike most such sites, investigators said required that the victim be identified by name, age and other information, leading to the identity theft allegations. He is charged with obtaining identifying information with the intent to annoy or harass.


OK mods: This isn't political news, I don't think. Maybe it is?? Move where appropriate.

ATS members spent a couple of days arguing the premise of outlawing revenge porn. It was a law that was just recently passed by the California legislature. We went back and forth regarding the first amendment and right to privacy. There were members that held their positions vehemently.

So now what do you have to say???

Well now I am thinking this piece of legislation was passed to go after this guy. I don't know what his street creds are but, the FEDS got him. That is some serious stuff right there. 31 Charges, I think??

So what do you think?? Is it a conspiracy? Is it a take down?

Chime in. I look forward to the debate again.

edit on 11-12-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on Wed Dec 11 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: ALL CAPS in title

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:01 PM
Oh boy....I frequented that website several times for.....ummmm.....research. I did feel really bad for the girls. Some had their job location posted and telephone #'s posted. Some were self posted but the majority was from pissed off exes. Terrible things were said to these girls. Horrible things. Disgusting things. There are a million porn sites and in am glad this site was shut down.

There is no need for sites like this. Young ladies have a tough enough time dealing with growing up and image issues. People have no compassion.
edit on 11-12-2013 by catfishjoe because: porn.....its bad. dont do it

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:14 PM
perhaps sites like this serve a purpose to remind people that actions have consequences and if you don't fancy a pic/video of you doing something to someone elses bits then don't let the photo/video be taken its that simple but on the otherhand posting stuff without consent is wrong especially with contact details etc so they get real life abuse/their bosses get to see stuff about their staff etc

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:17 PM
I have an ex-wife that I really don't care for, but I could never do something that low to even her. It is beyond my comprehension to hate a woman that much. It is about as low and scummy as you can get.

Personally I am glad they took it down and went after the guy. I don't care if he posted them or not. He supplied the vehicle to carry it out. If you were to deliver drugs in your car and got caught, it wouldn't make a bit of difference whether or not you made them, or was selling them. You supplied the vehicle to provide them.

edit on 11-12-2013 by Daz3d-n-Confus3d because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:26 PM
Simple solution..... Don't make movies, allow pictures to be taken, etc. because you never know what the future has in store for you. Play it safe always people. And if someone took a video/pictures without your consent that it totally different. But I have a hard time feeling bad for someone who willingly allowed another person to photo/film them naked.... Be smart people!!!!

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by GrantedBail

If the operator of that site faces extortion charges then the owner/operators of ALL the mugshot websites that charge a couple hundred dollars to remove mugshots (even if there's not conviction) should also face extortion charges and their websites be shut down.

Using public info (in the mugshot example) to extort money is wrong.

In this revenge porn example, while maybe not having the right to use the images/likeness of the individual, extortion is still wrong, and it's nothing more than vengeful humiliation.

While there is a right to privacy, they did engage in this and they DID put themselves in these positions (no pun intended), but they did NOT give the right to use their likeness publicly (unless they were fact creating some kind of porn), which is a sticky issue. I know when we film ANYTHING we get likeness/photo releases from ANYONE if we plan to display or use it publicly.

In this case, though, I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it IS extortion. And that is wrong.

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:20 PM
Wow, didn't get a chance to follow this the first time around. From the info provided, can say he deserves what he gets and happy the site is down. That type of site and encouraging it is a big violation of privacy, rightfully deemed as extortion, whether someone intently had vulnerable pictures taken(such as by trusted exs) or not, that's crossing a line.

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by Liquesence

I think the big difference is that in many places anyway, mugshots, arrest records and criminal filings are 100% wide open public record. The local Sheriff's department here has current inmate rolls with photos for each and a summary of info. So does the state prison system. I was pretty surprised, but the Sheriff here even has a running list of the entire active warrants file, sorted by first of the last name. Public record, all.

Naked pics of girls who didn't consent and had it done in a situation of trust and confidence? Well... That doesn't compare well to what the law says must or may be made available to a curious public. The girl's aren't public record.

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I understand that there is a difference, and I mentioned that in my first reply. Regardless, it's *still* extortion. Whether the records are public and 100% publicly accessible (arrest/warrants/mugshots/etc) and used to draw in cash, or whether taken (like in the case of the OP) *with* consent, and then used to draw in cash, it's still extortion. That's the bottle line.

Does the fact that one is a public record and another is not make extortion more acceptable? I argue no.

Naked pics of girls who didn't consent and had it done in a situation of trust and confidence? Well... That doesn't compare well to what the law says must or may be made available to a curious public. The girl's aren't public record.

I'm confused. I agree with that. I said regardless of whether they consented it's extortion, and it's wrong. The thin line of *legality* however is not what is in the public record, per se, and not even in consent (n this case). That is an entirely different issue. This issue is extortion, which I think you and i both agree, and think is wrong. My point was public records also being used for extortion. Once again the issue being: EXTORTION.

new topics

top topics


log in