back to article Super Cali goes ballistic: mugshot site atrocious

The state of California has brought felony charges against the group behind a site that collected mugshots and police records, then charged those featured to take down the pictures. Attorney General Xavier Beccara said the operators of Mugshots.com and Unpublisharrest.com committed extortion, money laundering, and identity …

  1. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Alistair
      Windows

      Re: America-Fuck-Yeah

      The Sherrifs offices that originally published this data charged what to take it down?

      Okay - that's pure conjecture but I'm gonna bet that the model started somewhere else before this lot got into the business, and the jealous parties are the ones that pushed the prosecution .....

      1. Cpt Blue Bear

        Re: America-Fuck-Yeah

        "The Sherrifs offices that originally published this data charged what to take it down?"

        Certainly not! The Sheriff's Office charging to remove data would be both an abuse of process and possibly perverting the course of justice.

        What individual Sheriff OfficeRs might charge is another matter all together.

    2. Eddy Ito
      WTF?

      Re: America-Fuck-Yeah

      Because in China where people are always guilty it's so much better or are you just confused between capitalism and crime? Seriously, non-sequitur much?

  2. JassMan
    Trollface

    So is there a site that will publish their pics?

    Sahar Sarid, Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie, Thomas Keesee, and David Usdan need to have their pics displayed so that they can be extradited (or better still, rendered in typical CIA fashion).

  3. 101

    Don't do what we do....do what we say you can do.....

    Police should not make pics and arrest records public in the first place. It's an abuse of governmental power and ongoing cruel and unusual punishment to let them be in the wild.

    But, nobody listens to me. So there it is, scammers do what is natural and THAT is illegal.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't do what we do....do what we say you can do.....

      It's worse than just that: they sometimes also pre-warn the press so they can turn up and get good photos of the arrests. Even if the charges don't stick the bad publicity is still out there. It's even got a name: "The Perp Walk" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk ) and was apparently a favourite practice of one Rudy Giuliani when he was as us AG.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't do what we do....do what we say you can do.....

      Why should people be able to be criminals anonymously? Let's say someone commits a rape, and he's arrested and his picture is made public. Maybe a few women who had unsolved rape cases in the past can call the police and say "that's the guy who raped me" so they can add the additional charges.

      Now maybe they should only publish pictures after conviction, or only for felonies or whatever, but the idea that crime should be anonymous is ridiculous. If someone has a history of stealing from businesses he's employed by, I damn sure don't want to hire him to work at my business! No one wants a convicted pedophile working at a school or daycare, etc.

      1. Danny 2

        Re: Don't do what we do....do what we say you can do.....

        The one time I encountered this site was when I searched on the name of a perfectly lovely girl I'd had a holiday affair with in California when we were teens.

        Her mugshot was there for being in a car in Florida when the police arrested someone else in the car for having a small amount of cannabis in their pocket. She was never even charged with any crime herself.

        That wasn't doing society any good having her mugshot online, and I am heartened to read these scumbags have been belatedly arrested.

    3. Shooter

      Re: Don't do what we do....do what we say you can do.....

      Actually, one of the most compelling reasons to make these records public is to *prevent* abuses of power.

      Having these records publicly available makes it much more difficult for the government to "disappear" people they don't like, as is common in dictatorships and third-world countries.

      Assuming, of course, that the government actually documents the arrest at all.

  4. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Hmmmm

    Sahar Sarid, Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie, Thomas Keesee, and David Usdan

    When Trump says "they are not sending their best", he may not be half wrong.

    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Headmaster

      Re: Hmmmm

      When Trump says "they are not sending their best", he may not be half wrong.

      Deeper political context aside, this statement means virtually nothing with the combination of qualifiers and waffling that you have managed to cram into six - six! - words. While El Presidente may not be half wrong, he might be or he might be entirely right or entirely wrong. He might be right (or wrong) about whether someone is sending someone else and the same for the quality of those being sent (or not). A little of Column A, a little of Column B?

      From the down votes, I would assume that our fellow commentards believe you agree with Trump and disapprove of this sentiment, but I have to give you one for phrasing.

      Where's the Archer icon?

  5. tom dial Silver badge

    The activity the California AG is going after certainly is reprehensible. They (and apparently Florida, where two of the individuals charged were arrested) have a law making it illegal to charge for removing the arrest reports from a web site, although from this article and several others it is not clear whether those laws are the basis for the charge. It also is not obvious that the activity is extortion or involves money laundering or identity theft.

    The records at issue are public records, and it is not clear that the first amendment permits laws that prohibit their republication or require their removal, whether with a fee or without. Civil law may provide a better approach: Gabiola v. Mugshots, a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Illinois apparently is going forward and will, one may hope, lay on the owners of the web site a crushing financial burden that will put them out of business and deter others who operate a similar business. It is remotely possible that members of the class will receive some compensation.

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: not obvious that the activity is extortion

      Post: "It also is not obvious that the activity is extortion or involves money laundering or identity theft."

      Extortion:

      Definition: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. ... If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime." [source1]

      In practice: We've put up information that you don't want out there. In many cases (see article) it's actually wrong information, but you can bet we're not putting that fact up. If you want this removed, or, we must reiterate, your true innocence vindicated, you'll just have to pay us, won't you? It'd be a shame if you got denied that job just because the police mistook you for someone else and released you after an hour.

      Money Laundering:

      Definition: "Money Laundering. The process of taking the proceeds of criminal activity and making them appear legal. Laundering allows criminals to transform illegally obtained gain into seemingly legitimate funds." [source2]

      In practice: If the state is correct that this activity is extortion, then by definition the proceeds thereof were obtained illegally. Using those funds to purchase items is therefore money laundering. This relies on the state being correct about the activity being criminal. I cover this above.

      Identity Theft:

      Definition: "Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This legislation created a new offense of identity theft, which prohibits "knowingly transfer[ring] or us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law." 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)."

      In practice: Perhaps this will hinge on whether the pictures of people collected through police procedure are "means of identification of another person". However, current law does hold that, in general, pictures of people does count as identifying. Assuming this holds for mugshots, they were used by these people in order to commit a crime, extortion.

      I have no doubt that this does count as extortion. Money laundering can be argued depending on what they did with the money, but they're almost certainly guilty if the facts are correctly stated. Identity theft is more a legal issue. They can figure out the mugshots detail if they want.

      Source1: https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/extortion.html

      Source2: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/money+laundering

      Source3: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/identity-theft/identity-theft-and-identity-fraud

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There might be an angle for a UK Government version of this

    with Theresa May & friends as Shareholders and also as Data Subjects.

  7. Brett Weaver

    OK

    I liked the headline

    1. Sam Therapy

      Re: OK

      It's traditional for Cali headlines to be in this format.

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: OK

        Why on earth would anyone downvote that?

        1. chivo243 Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: OK

          @ Jamie Jones

          Seems everyone has an invisible troll here at El Reg... I get a single downvote a lot, too bad we can't see who up voted and down voted your posts. I'm looking for you my invisible troll ;-}

          1. not.known@this.address
            Trollface

            Re: OK

            @ Chivo243

            I'm not your normal invisible Troll but I just couldn't resist Downvoting you after that post. Still, I'm posting this reply anonymously so you'll never know who I am!

            [and yes, I *do* know it's not posted Anonymously. It's my feeble attempt at humour...]

            [and unfortunately it won't let me give you both an Upvote AND a Downvote. What sort of a shonky voting system is this??]

            1. chivo243 Silver badge

              Re: OK

              Guess who upvoted...???

  8. Mystic Megabyte

    strange

    The mug shots would have been copyright of the cops, they could have used DMCA to get them taken down.

    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Childcatcher

      Re: strange

      The mug shots would have been copyright of the cops...

      Pics taken by government officials as part of their jobs are official documents and as such are not protected from unsanctioned use by copyright laws in the US. There are other legal limits, but copyright does not apply.

  9. jimdandy
    Big Brother

    Beccara? Try Becerra and see if that works just a little better.

    If you can't get the name right, then just exactly WHAT did you get right?

    1. Spacedinvader
      Facepalm

      Both are used so not even consistently wrong!

  10. Gordon Pryra

    No need to go through the hassle of the legal system

    Just make those two sites live again.

    This time, the only mugshots, personal information and contact addresses are of the people who ran the two sites originally.

    Job done, justice on the way

  11. Roger Kynaston
    Pint

    I do't get why they put the pictures online in the first place

    I have never understood why ameriplods feel the need to put mugshots of everyone they pinch on the intertubes for all and sundry (in this case sundry) to see.

    Cany any stateside commentards enlighten?

    Beer as over indulgence in said beverage could lead to you becoming a victim of these turds.

  12. Jess--

    as I see it they fell foul of the law because the only way of getting a picture taken down was to pay.

    if they had a free option (will be taken down within 6 months of request) and a paid fast-track option they may have got away with it.

  13. JJKing
    WTF?

    Good, but it can be better.

    While this is an admirable thing for the California AG to do, why does he not extend that same sentiment to the guy who has been on Death Row for 20 years for a crime it appears he didn't commit. The defence want to pay for a DNA test on clothing that would likely prove his innocents but the AG AND the Governor refuse to allow it to happen. This was a case where a 17 year old black youth was arrested for a murder that several witness said was done by 3 white men. Evidence was destroyed, hidden, with-held from the defence and manufactured.

    Land of the free (if you can afford the fees a really good lawyer) and home of the brave (white man armed with multiple semi automatic military style weapons that can take down people several hundred yards away but is necessary for close quarters home defence).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like