> 18 years is absolutely insane. Utterly, terrifyingly insane.

Why exactly are you terrified?

> That's more than murder gets in many countries. That's more than rape gets. That's more than terrorism gets.

Orange and Apples.

In my understanding Kevin Christopher Bollaert developed a business case where he invited people on a global scale to harm other people. Then in a second step he took advantage of the miserable situation of those victims.

Why do you and other people in this thread fail to see the highly destructive element of this crime? The problem is not just the quality of the crime, where victims experience severe violations of their privacy, it's also the potential quantitity because this business model is only successfull if a lot of people participate.

Not them but...

> Why exactly are you terrified?

Because disproportionate punishment on one crime could result in disproportionate punishment on another. In particular with how the US has been fearmongering "cybercrime" recently, before we know it someone gets a 10+ year sentence for an SQL injection.

> That's more than murder gets in many countries.

>> Orange and Apples.

Indeed it is. So why is apples getting a similar punishment to orange? That's the problem, that they are orange and apples, but yet get punished the same. Where is the logic in that?

> Why do you and other people in this thread fail to see the highly destructive element of this crime?

That's a strawman. Nobody is arguing that he shouldn't have been jailed, nobody. Therefore there is no way you can claim that people think what he did isn't "highly destructive." They just don't think it is on the same "level" as murder, multiple rapes, or beating two people to within an inch of their lives.

You know what else was highly destructive? Wallstreet fraud. How many people lost their jobs? Lost their homes? Literally committed suicide? And how many of them went to jail for a single year let alone eighteen? None.

The legal system is corrupt and inconsistent. That's a genuine problem and one people are right to complain about.

> one crime

Since there were thousands of separate victims, I think that thinking of it as "one crime" doesn't really do it justice.

Then as a third step he profited from this harm, he extorted further payments from victims to stop being harmed, and proved his utterly lack of interest, care, remorse or empathy for anyone involved.

"For the lulz".

USA is one country under God, for liberty and justice for all... that includes the asshole who abused these women's privacy - which isn't only illegal, but immoral as well. He deserves to do time.

Having said that, 18 years does seem unusually harsh, as I know countries where the maximum penalty for murder is 25 years, 7 over and above what this guy got. Chances are the sentencing will be appealed and/or he will be able to get out on parole probably within a fraction of his sentence.

>USA is one country under God, for liberty and justice for all... that includes the asshole who abused these women's privacy

You conflate justice with punishment, when the whole premise of the parent comment what that such a term is not "just".

Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical - Blaise Pascal

They are necessarily conflated.

> That's more than rape gets.

To be fair, rape convictions result in a lifetime sentence in the US, with no chance of parole. The fact that convicted sexual offenders only spend a portion of their sentence in jail (the sad irony being that we send them there to be raped and beaten) does little to commute the effect of these lifetime sentences.

I think it's overly cruel as well, but it's worth noting that this is multiple counts of extortion and has done significant damage to quite a few people's lives.

By bad luck he happened to be the same person who also did something legal that they really didn't like and also something illegal. So his legal actions have caused an excessive sentence for the relatively minor crimes he was actually convicted of.

If embarrassing people was a crime, the ex-partners who gave him the photos would be charged too. Those people are even more at fault than him.

> If embarrassing people was a crime, the ex-partners who gave him the photos would be charged too.

It is a crime (disorderly conduct). See California Penal Code 647(j)(4). California Senate Bill No. 1255 made this into law.

> Any person who intentionally distributes the image of the intimate body part ... under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private, the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress.

Convictions for the people who gave him the photos probably won't be news.

He did far more than just "embarrass people". He knowingly and willfully extorted people. He caused major psychological damage. How would you like someone to gather sexual images of you, attempt to extort you to keep them hidden, and then, when you didn't pay up, publish those pictures for the world to see. Would you feel as though you just let out a fart in public, or would it be someone worse?

27 counts of extortion is not a "relatively minor crime".

I feel like we've seen so many (genuine) cases of government overstep that we've been sensitized to see any crime involving the internet as "blown out of proportion." What this guy did was no better than a stereotypical Mafia protection racket.

18 years for running such a disgusting website and then blackmailing victims for cash to have the images removed is insane? Do you stop and think about the victims of this asshole? People that have their lives irreversibly ruined because of his profiteering? I think this is a perfectly reasonable punishment for such a coward.

He motivated people to cause harm to other, so he could make a profit of their suffering. There's few things as immoral as that.