Archive for: January, 2015

Urgent warning for men following Skype internet blackmail scam

skype internet scam warning

Detectives in York have issued an urgent warning after three men from the York area have been blackmailed by a woman claiming to be called Cathy Wong.

The woman has befriended them on Facebook and asked them to skype her. She has then enticed them into performing an indecent act which she has recorded on video.

She has then told the men, who are all students, that her grandmother is ill and needs money and has asked them each to send £3,000 via money transfer.

When they refused to send the money, she has threatened them with uploading the video to Youtube. This is all part of the internet blackmail scam.

It is believed that the scam is occurring world wide, however these are the first cases reported in the York area. The men are not known to each other and officers are concerned that there may be other victims. Officers are exploring the possibility that the scam is operated by an organized crime group.

Police are urging internet users, particularly students, to be on their guard and to contact them if they believe they have been targeted.

“This scam is causing considerable distress to the victims and I urge anyone who uses any kind of social networking site to be very wary of what they are getting into.

“I am concerned that there are other victims of this scam who are too embarrassed to come forward about what has happened. I urge them to please get in touch with the police. Your information will be dealt with in the strictest confidence and with sensitivity. Please do not suffer in silence.”

To report an incident, please contact North Yorkshire Police on 101, select option 1 and pass information to the Force Control Room.

Or you can email Rebecca.dyer@northyorkshire.pnn.police.uk

You can also pass information anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/14909Read the rest

Pictures: Cazine McCarthy, revenge porn victim: ‘How my ex humiliated me.’

Cazine McCarthy Lloyd Nathan

Cazine McCarthy and her former boyfriend Lloyd Nathan. How laws protecting victims of revenge porn have yet to have caught up…

UK woman Cazine McCarthy of Haverfordwest, Wales has bravely come to the fore to explain how she came to be a victim of revenge porn after her boyfriend, Nathan Lloyd, 22 took umbrage with her after she put a close to their relationship.

Taking intimate images and video she had once she shared with her former boyfriend, Nathan posted the lot on instagram after breaking into his ex’s account and changing passwords, in essence locking her out.

Since the incident which would eventually land Lloyd in some serious hot water, the 22 year old single mother of one has spoken out in the hopes of warning other women about the dangers of sending explicit photographs in what she described as a ‘moment of madness.’

Told Cazine McCarthy via the UK’s dailymail: ‘I sent a video and image of myself to Nathan because he was working away and kept asking.

‘I was unsure at first but he reassured me. He said I could trust him and that he would never show anyone else.

‘Looking back it was stupid and I’d never do it again.

‘Women have to protect themselves. Not knowing where my picture has been shared is so frightening.’

Cazine McCarthy

Incredulously images and video of McCarthy were only removed from Instagram after the woman’s friends reported it hundreds of times.

Added Cazine: ‘I’ve lost total control.

‘Looking back I wouldn’t have sent him the photo or the video but I can’t change what happened.

‘What I can do is discourage other young women from making the same mistake.

‘Even if you think you love and trust someone you don’t know how they will react when you break up.’

During their relationship her ex had taken note of her passwords for her social networking sites so he could check up on her. He also followed her into town on a couple of occasions.

Miss McCarthy then decided to end her relationship with him because he was ‘aggressive and controlling.’

Lloyd then used this knowledge to post the intimate picture on her Instagram account and change the password so she could not remove it. She begged him to take the messages down but he refused, responding with abusive messages.

Reiterated the single mom: ‘His possessive behavior gave me the creeps. But breaking up with him only made it worse.

‘He turned nasty and uploaded the private images I’d sent him as revenge.

‘When I protested he showed up at my house and kicked down my door.

‘That’s when I called the police.’

Lloyd admitted breaking the UK’s Telecommunications Act by posting the image and criminal damage and was given a restraining order.

He was also ordered to attend a ‘building better relationships’ course to learn about aggression and relationships – avoiding a prison sentence.

McCarthy said the picture and video made her clearly identifiable and she feared her followers on Instagram thought she wanted them to see her baring all.

She said: ‘I would never have thought that that brief moment of madness back then would have caused me so much grief and heartache.’

‘I know people locally are talking about me and everyone knows what happened.

‘I keep thinking that people might have screengrabbed the video and shared it with friends.

‘You can see my face in the picture but not in the video.

‘Everyone knew it was me though because of the tattoo on my right side and it’s obvious that I was recording in my house.

‘I couldn’t even deny it.

‘What’s worse is that my followers would have thought I wanted them to see me naked.

‘It was mortifying.’

In December the CPS launched new guidelines on tackling domestic abuse which will include using technology to inflict misery on former partners. Under the new guidance issued prosecutors will be encouraged to consider how revenge porn can be treated as a form of .

Pictures: Cazine McCarthy, revenge ‘How my ex humiliated me.’ By
http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2015/01/cazine-mccarthy-revenge-porn-victim/… Read the rest

Jets Jermaine Cunningham faces charge of so-called revenge porn

SUMMIT — When Jets linebacker Jermaine Cunningham was arrested Dec. 29 in Summit, he became one of the latest high-profile cases of what is commonly called “revenge porn.”

Cunningham was charged under a New Jersey statute that makes it a crime to distribute sexual images of someone without that person’s consent. The 10-year-old law was the first in the nation to make the spreading of such images a crime.

Lawyers familiar with cyber invasion of a personal privacy say distribution of the explicit images is an ever-growing problem fed by the rapid advance of personal electronic devices and expansion of social media.

“We don’t have our phones within an arm’s length. We have them in our hands,” said Carrie Goldberg, a Brooklyn lawyer who focuses on issues of invasion of sexual privacy.

Cunningham was arrested at his Summit apartment Dec. 29 in what authorities said was a domestic violence case. He was charged with spreading the sexual images, and charged with criminal mischief for allegedly destroying clothes. Police also charged him with illegally having a .380 handgun in the glove compartment of his car.

Cunningham has pleaded not guilty and his lawyer says he will fight the charges.

Prosecutors have released no information about a motive in the case, but Goldberg said it fits the criteria for invasion of privacy.

Though often commonly called “revenge porn,” Goldberg says that’s a misnomer catch-all phrase referring to any disclosure of sexual pictures without the person’s consent.

Jermaine Cunningham Jets LinebackerJets linebacker Jermaine Cunningham appeared in court Wednesday and pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from illegal disclosure of a person’s sexual images, which is commonly known as “revenge porn.”

“The motive is not really relevant. It could be a hacker who’s just putting the images out there for kicks,” Goldberg said.

“Regardless of the motive, the harm and humiliation to the victim are the same,” she said.

Mary Anne Franks, an associate professor a the University of Miami Law School, refers to it as “non-consensual pornography.”

New Jersey became the first state in the nation to make unauthorized spreading of a person’s sexually explicit images a crime when it passed the law in 2004, said Franks, who has helped draft similar statutes in other states.

Currently 16 states have laws outlawing the distribution of such images, but with 13 states enacting the measure over the last 18 months, she said.

Goldberg credits New Jersey with aggressively pursuing the issue. In one case, she said, a man was sentenced to six months in jail.

“New Jersey is serious about prosecuting people,” she said.

The third-degree crime carries a maximum sentence upon conviction of five years in prison.

MORE UNION COUNTY NEWS

Tom Haydon may be reached at thaydon@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @Tom_HaydonSL. Find NJ.com on Facebook.

Jets Linebacker Jermaine Cunningham faces charge of so-called revenge porn
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/01/jets_linebacker_face_charge_of_revenge_porn_under_new_jersey_law_that_led_country.html… Read the rest

Teenage revenge porn victim, Jodie Carrigan, warns other women to ‘be careful’

Jodie Carrigan has warned teenagers about the dangers of 'revenge porn' after she was targeted by an ex

  • Scottish teenager had rocky relationship with boyfriend before they split
  • She was then phoned by her friends and told he had posted picture online
  • Victim phoned police after her ex refused to take down the photo
  • Ex-boyfriend has now admitted causing distress and could face jail
  • Victims speaks out warning others to be careful with their partners

A victim of so-called ‘revenge porn’ says she was left ‘numb’ after her ex-boyfriend posted an explicit picture of her on Facebook.

Jodie Carrigan, of Muirhead, near Glasgow, was targeted by Robert McGinlay, 20, after the couple split up in 2013.

Miss Carrigan, 19, has now sent out a warning to other women and teenagers after McGinlay, of Moddiesburn, Lanarkshire, admitted causing distress.

Jodie Carrigan has warned teenagers about the dangers of ‘revenge porn’ after she was targeted by an ex

The couple started seeing each other in September 2013 but they split up after McGinlay, of Moodiesburn, Lanarkshire, became possessive and paranoid, a court has heard.

Miss Carrigan later took McGinlay back when he said he had changed and they continued seeing each other until they split up for a second time, weeks later.

But Miss Carrigan was left devastated when friends contacted her to say there was explicit pictures of her and McGinlay on Facebook, which had been viewed hundreds of times.

She begged McGinlay to take down the pictures but he refused and she called the police.

Robert McGinlay is due to be sentenced later this month after he admitted an offence in relation to his treatment of Miss Carrigan

Robert McGinlay is due to be sentenced later this month after he admitted an offense in relation to his treatment of Miss Carrigan

He is due to be sentenced later this month at Airdrie Sheriff Court after admitting he acted in a threatening or abusive manner and caused fear or alarm towards Miss Carrigan by posting a sexually graphic image of her on a social media website.

Miss Carrigan has now waived the anonymity she was given by the court to issue a warning to other unsuspecting women.

She said: ‘Robert was so nice, one of the nicest I had ever met to be honest.

‘We started seeing each other but within two weeks he was acting weird. He was very possessive and always wanting to know where I had been and who I was seeing.

‘We split up but he asked to see me again and after promising to change the relationship started again.

‘But it didn’t take long for him to start acting weird again.’

She added: ‘We split again in December after he was drunk and got verbally abusive, calling me all different names.

‘He sent me a text telling me to look at his new photo on Facebook. I was at a pal’s house and as I went to look my sister phoned saying she had seen the photo.

‘I phoned Robert to ask him to take it down otherwise I was phoning the police and he refused so I hung up and phoned them straight away.

‘I was absolutely horrified and humiliated that he had done this. I had no idea he had been filming us together. It was such a betrayal.

‘I had no idea what to do, I honestly freaked out, I just went numb.’

McGinlay, a warehouse worker, told officers he put up the picture out of spite after the relationship ended.

McGinlay had not guilty pleas accepted to charges that he posted a video of him and Miss Carrigan and sent sexual written communications to her.

A picture of the couple together during their relationship, which turned sour in December 2013

A picture of the couple together during their relationship, which turned sour in December 2013

Miss Carrigan has a new partner but revealed she has a strict no phones rule in the bedroom and has issued a warning to other women.

She added: ‘I have a new partner that I live with, but there’s a lot of trust issues within the relationship. I have a no phone rule in the bedroom if we’re going to be together.

‘In my circumstances I didn’t know but a lot of girls allow it and don’t expect a guy they trusted to go and do it so all I can say is be careful.

‘Just be aware of what’s happening around you in the bedroom and anywhere else for that matter.’

CRACKDOWN: GOVERNMENT’S PLEDGE TO TACKLE REVENGE PORN

Luke King was jailed for posting the explicit image

Luke King was jailed for posting the explicit image

Those convicted of revenge porn – the distribution of a private sexual image of someone without their consent and with the intention of causing them distress – could face two years in prison under new laws.

It will be made a specific offense, covering the sharing of images both online and offline, in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. 

It will mean that images posted to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will be caught by the offense, as well as those that are shared via text message. 

Images shared via email, on a website or the distribution of physical copies will also be caught.

Victims of revenge porn have previously found it difficult to have pictures removed from the internet.

Many sites where the images are hosted are based outside the UK, and requests to remove content are often ignored. In some cases, asking for removal results in more attention being brought to the images.

The move to clamp down on ‘revenge porn’ came after 149 cases, the vast majority of them involving women victims, were reported over two and a half years. Only six led to prosecutions.

However, the new rules do not affect the consensual ‘sexting’ of images by under-18s. This is already illegal – but police cannot monitor mobile photo messages. 

Last year, Luke King, 21, of Nottingham, became the first person to be jailed for revenge porn offenses in the UK. After his three-year relationship ended he posted a number of explicit images of his former partner, and changed his WhatsApp icon to one of the images.

King was eventually prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 after he ignored two police warnings not to share the X-rated images and was jailed for 12 weeks. 

Read the rest
Illinois Passes Revenge Porn Law

Illinois Passes Revenge Porn Law With Teeth: ‘Other States Should Copy’

Sixteen states have now made it a felony to publish so-called revenge porn — sexual images or video of someone without his or her consent. But Monday, [state] what many say is the country’s strongest anti-revenge-porn legislation yet. The law would take effect June 1.

New York lawyer Carrie Goldberg, who advocates for victims whose privacy has been invaded by technology, spoke with International Business Times Tuesday about what might surprise people about revenge-porn laws, why the Illinois law is a step forward, and what needs to be done to end what she says is a violation of the disproportionately female victims’ civil rights.

“I’m very pleased with the legislation,” Goldberg said. “It was a hard-earned battle that was in legislation for a long time. It’s a testament to [state] Rep. [a Highwood Democrat] [a Highwood Democrat] who was a real champion.”

What the new law does

The Illinois discounts motive for posting intimate images of someone without his or her consent. Revenge porn is classically thought of as something vengeful exes do to humiliate and punish their ex-partners after a breakup, but the Illinois law gives priority to the harm done to victims. It also makes it a crime to disseminate someone’s intimate selfie without his or her consent. An earlier [state], which has since been amended, was criticized by victims’ advocates for applying only to images taken by someone other than the victim. The images that would fall under the [state] also don’t have to be nudes — they can be images of sexual activity that don’t necessarily require the exposure of intimate parts, for example images of the victim performing a sex act.

The Illinois law doesn’t exempt those who publish intimate images if they received them secondhand. It takes into account a “reasonable person” standard and considers most people can determine if an image is private and the person depicted would not consent to have it disseminated. The price to pay for posting revenge porn is also significant under the Illinois law: It’s a Class 4 felony punishable by one to three years in prison, a possible $25,000 fine and restitution to victims for costs incurred.

Free speech versus ‘private speech’

And although the Illinois law accounts for free speech — for example, by not limiting the reproduction of “voluntary exposure in public or commercial settings” — Goldberg offered food for thought to those who fear anti-revenge-porn legislation will violate First Amendment rights.

“So much is said about how laws butt up against [state],” Goldberg said, “but if we lose the expectation of privacy in taking images meant only for someone we trust, then we lose another valuable form of speech: our private speech. There is nothing wrong with taking pictures of yourself that are meant only for another person you trust.”

Revenge porn is everywhere

Although there are dedicated revenge-porn sites — such as the now-defunct IsAnyoneUp.com, created by Hunter Moore, “the most hated man on the Internet,” revenge porn exists on the Internet in many other incarnations.

“There are so many people who do this,” Goldberg said. “We think of this in classic form as something an ex does to get revenge after a relationship goes sour, but that’s not always the scenario. Some people don’t even know the victim, as in hacking cases.”

Revenge porn is ubiquitous. Some amateur porn found on porn websites has been uploaded without a person’s consent. Revenge porn can be found on sub-Redditts or disseminated on social media. And some revenge porn has moved to “Tor” networks, or the underground Internet. Some people who see revenge porn are consumers — others, targeted loved ones, friends and colleagues, who are emailed or texted the porn or who see it on the victim’s Facebook page.

Federal law protects revenge-porn websites

What might surprise people about the Hunter Moore case is that he was indicted on federal charges for hacking, that is, paying someone to obtain the images he posted on his revenge-porn site — and not for publishing the images. That’s because publishing revenge porn isn’t a federal crime — something Moore knew when he was interviewed by [a Highwood Democrat] in 2012 and said under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) he was protected from publishing intimate images of people without their consent.

He wasn’t wrong: The CDA states website owners aren’t liable for content submitted by other users.

“People often say, ‘Go after the website,'” Goldberg said, “but you can’t. State [state] doesn’t trump the CDA. There would have to be a new federal criminal law to make a real dent.” She and other victim advocates at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative are advocating for a federal criminal law, one of which has been drafted by University of Miami Law School Professor Mary Anne Franks. This law, which Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., is preparing to introduce, could co-exist with the CDA while holding operators of revenge porn sites criminally responsible.

But for now, revenge porn websites get pulled for hacking, publishing underage porn or trying to extort from victims. Criminal charges for revenge porn, however, are made “indirectly,” Goldberg said, through the violation of other criminal laws. The CDA also protects websites from being sued in civil court.

Protecting women ‘a [a Highwood Democrat] issue’

Although laws are far from perfect, Goldberg said she is heartened by the Illinois law. In her practice, she has had women from all walks of life — students, professionals, mothers with children — call her in suicidal states of despair after they became victims of revenge porn, and in half the cases, their images accompanied by identifying information — names, addresses, social media handles — which opened them up to harm from harassers and stalkers.

“Other states that haven’t passed or have sub-par laws should follow Illinois as a model,” she said. “Revenge porn is a form of domestic violence and the harms are significant and enduring. Women are disproportionately the victims and the harms are more intense — harassment and social judgment are horrendous, worse than for the male victim.

Read the rest

Woman’s ex headed for trial under new Wisconsin revenge porn law

In what has become an increasingly common phenomenon, a Milwaukee woman had to face having nude and seminude photos of her posted on the Internet in April as collateral damage of a messy breakup.

Her ex, Keslin Jean Jacques, told her there was nothing she could do to stop him, according to a criminal complaint, because Gov. Scott Walker had not yet signed into law a bill aimed at outlawing the practice.

Apparently he hadn’t been keeping up with the news.

Walker had signed the bill 12 days earlier, and Jean Jacques, 31, of Milwaukee, became one of the first people charged under the new law on April 22.

The offense — posting or publishing a sexually explicit image without consent — is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in jail and $10,000 fine.

Jean Jacques’ case is scheduled for trial Wednesday.

It was initially set for August, but a committee was still working on the standard jury instructions for the new charge.

Revenge porn involves the publication of intimate photos that were once shared willingly, often with identifying information, even an email address or phone number of the subject, almost always a female.

The first inclination of many victims and their lawyers is to try to get Internet service providers or social media sites to take down the images, or to hold them liable, but the federal Communications Decency Act largely provides immunity to platforms for what their users do.

The practice has been charged as cyberstalking or harassment in some states.

Other victims have tried personal injury actions against ex-lovers who post the photos. Some scholars have even suggested copyright law might be an effective tool, since many of the explicit photos are “selfies,” taken by the subjects themselves.

California was the first state to pass legislation specifically aimed at revenge porn, and prosecutors won the first conviction under that 2013 law last month.

About a dozen states have tried to follow California’s lead and outlaw the practice but have run into First Amendment concerns (except when the subjects are minors; then child pornography laws apply).

In Arizona, booksellers challenged a 2014 law that made revenge porn a felony as overbroad and likely to make criminal books that contain certain nude images that really don’t fit the intent of the law.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn this week signed into law a measure that bans the practice of revenge porn, according to the Chicago Tribune. The law makes it a felony to post sexually explicit videos and photos of another person online without his or her permission.

Wisconsin’s law prohibits publication of “private representation” without the consent of the person depicted.

It defines “private representation” as a nude or partially nude image intended by the subject to be “captured, viewed or possessed” only by the person intended by the subject.

It does not require any intent by the publisher to embarrass the subject; an ex-boyfriend who claims he was publishing the photo to bring the subject compliments would be just as guilty.

The Wisconsin law also provides an exception for posting a private image “that is newsworthy or of public importance.”

Woman’s ex headed for trial under new Wisconsin revenge porn law – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
revenge porn – Google News

Read the rest