Is Anybody Down?

Friday, November 16, 2012

Transcript

A website called "Is Anybody Down" has popped up to fill the niche that was left when the revenge porn site "Is Anyone Up" shut down in April of this year. Like its predecessor, the site allows users to submit naked photos of other people and include links to the naked person's social networking page. But according to attorney Marc Randazza, this website's business model is slightly different from Is Anyone Up, and is of questionable legality. Bob talks to Randazza and Is Anybody Down's founder Craig Brittain.

Guests:

Craig Brittain and Marc Randazza

Hosted by:

Bob Garfield

Comments [137]

flip

Amanda, it may be worth noting two things:
1. You're not complaining on the same site that has used the pics. This is a site for a media organisation that interviewed those people.
2. If you read the comments you'll find info for people who will be willing to help you, including info about lawyers. I recommend you follow up with them or your own lawyer.

Feb. 10 2013 09:59 PM
amanda marisha carbones

ok where is your contact page? as there are pics up of my 15 yr old daughter and i dont like it one bit!!!!!!!! arent you guys suppose to check these things out? i have talked to my lawyer about this issue and am prepared to handle this matter if you guys dont takes those awful pics down!!!!!! now i am not saying that my daughter was in the right to take those kinds of pics and i have disaplined her for that!!!!!!! so i am asking one time nicely, please take those pics of my daughter stephanie lyn - marisha carbones down

Feb. 10 2013 03:32 PM
pissed off at craig b

oh god, craig, just stop. so you're broke and unemployable--so are a lot of people, but they don't stoop to these levels just to make a buck.

the bottom line is you're taking personal, private images and making them public without the consent of the people in these images. you think everything is up for grabs just because someone offered someone else a glimpse of their naked body and somehow you got a hold of that glimpse. but it's not yours to use as you see fit.

when you scam people on craigslist or ask bitter exes to betray the folks who used to trust them, you're appealing to the lowest of the low in every person. you're causing stress and serious emotional damage in people who just wanted to trust another human with something as simple as a nude picture.

you're not destigmatizing nudity--you're creating an even greater punishment for anyone who dares take nude photos. you're publicly shaming them when they're just trying to enjoy their bodies.

you apparently understand very little about hegemonic cultural mores. posting nudes of a bunch of strangers with tons of personal information--a move which SERIOUSLY ENDANGERS people, exposing them to more internet scumbags and potential predators--isn't going to make nudity less stigmatized. an intelligent and thoughtful campaign with yourself as the subject would be more effective, because it would be that voluntary offering of your own naked bod that would give meaning to your "cause." forcing others to endure public judgment just because someone once posted your nudes isn't exactly sending a sex-positive or body-positive message to the world.

as for your argument that taking nude photos is akin to crashing into a telephone pole, no. taking nude photos is just taking nude photos, and most people do so under the assumption that they will be able to decide who gets to see them and who doesn't. it's not an accident that they took the photo. it's an accident that the photo ended up in your slimy hands. you're more like the jerk in the passenger seat who grabbed the wheel and swerved into the pole when the driver was doing fine on their own.

justify your reprehensible behavior any way you see fit--i just know you'll figure out a way to explain the blame away from yourself yet again, somehow paint yourself as the number one victim here, but just remember that the people in those photos are indeed people, with lives and friends and family, and they deserve privacy and respect.

Jan. 08 2013 04:06 PM
Tristan from Albuquerque

This type of journalism really is rather hokey and not what I look for when listening to OTM. One of the main focuses of the show is to look into how media spins stories. Bob became what the show strives to point out, and lost all professionalism during that interview. If Bob wants to show his passion about how he feels on these issues, he should find another venue to do so. I am here to impartially look into the way media looks at a story, not to have OTM do a report with insane bias and broadcast it.

Dec. 05 2012 06:18 PM
Sally

Craig is a hypocrite. He has a video interview of Hunter Moore that he uploaded to YouTube under his LordAkeneon moniker. There are three such videos he uploaded about Hunter Moore. Go to the first one labeled Dr. Drew Show: Part One - Hunter Moore (isanyoneup) vs. Tucker Max, April 23rd, 2012

On this video he posts the following (don’t worry there are screen captures of it in case he deletes it)

“Good, fuck yourself, commit suicide instead.
LordAkaneon in reply to Devin Siegel(Show the comment) 2 months ago “

So while he’s happy to make up lies by stating that Mr. Randazza wants victims of his to commit suicide, in reality it’s Craig making those statements. Mr. Randazza is trying to help the victims of Craig Brittain and other losers like him. Craig hopes they commit suicide.

Additionally, almost every comment on that video is from some sock puppet account created by Craig Brittain to promote his site. Yet, he calls all the people who post here sock puppets. Seems he likes to accuse others of the things he is actually doing. Therefore he is a hypocrite.

Additionally, I posted comments on that video. He deleted them and then blocked me from posting to the video. So, he is also a coward and a wimp.

Dec. 02 2012 10:10 AM
GuessWhoIam? from Under your bed

Back around June when the take down lawyer was first launched, I knew it was a scam and that there were no David Blaine. I did further research and found that I was correct. I even showed my friends and we all laughed about it and your failed attempt to earn more revenue. Extortion and posing as a lawyer is some pretty serious shit.

You're not even a good enough IM/Web Designer to figure out how to monetize your site properly. That shows a lot about your character and intelligence.

Even the majority of black hats know better then this, and for the ones that do attempt scummy shit like that, they at least have the common sense to cover their tracks.

The first red flag were, David Blaine and iabd were on the same server, host, ip.

2nd, you put absolutely no time into making it look at least half way LEGIT. Anyone can install word press and a free theme. You even used the most common free theme word press has to offer.

How you got any money out of these people is beyond me.

Just give it up, you lose. You sound like a pissed off child that got caught and can't even keep your story straight.

Nov. 29 2012 11:01 PM

Anon: I hope you will consider contacting Marc Randazza, if you haven't already. If you email me (adam.steinbaugh@gmail.com), I can also put you in touch with someone who is willing to help bury Google results for your name.

Nov. 28 2012 07:16 PM
anon

I had my pictures posted on the website. I was not one of the girls who sent naked photos to an ex... In fact I did not send them to anyone. Yes, its true that those who have been exploited are scared that their family, friends, and bosses will and they will be judged. Craig brittain wants it to be normal to have you naked pictures and info available on the internet. But I don't. To those who think Bob was a little harsh by saying starve... I'm guessing you have never felt the way I feel. To you its not a big deal. To me, I get a sick gut wrenching feeling when I think about it. I want to throw up. That happens atleast once a day. I have had people txt and call me to ask me about it. I have had people harass me. It's somthing that will never go away. I am now seeing a therapist and am taking medicine for anxiety and depression... So no... Craig brittain.. this is not just somthing that I am worried my boss or coworkers will see. It has affected ME!!!

Nov. 28 2012 06:54 PM
flip

@Esteban

Not only is that victim blaming, but, you've obviously not followed this very closely: in some cases, the nude photos have been solicited under false pretenses from people on Craigslist looking for love. Just because you share something with someone in private (and they later post as revenge) between consenting adults does not mean you also consent to it appearing all over the internet. And even then, it does not excuse the addition of hunting down contact information and posting it with the pictures, encouraging people to contact those in the photos, and refusing to take down the pics when asked.

Nor does it excuse extortion.

Nov. 28 2012 02:09 PM
Esteban

You can't stop the free flow of information. If you don't want nude pictures of yourself posted in perpetuity on websites like this, don't put them out there. No, Craig will not take responsibility for his lot in life, which he should, but neither apparently will these so-called victims.

Nov. 28 2012 11:20 AM
Chris Recouvreur from California

Craig let's again show you how easy this is.

Who is Chris Recouvreur? A student, father, husband, decent cook and writer. Not a fake lawyer.
Did Chris Recouvreur advertise on Is Anybody Down as an attorney? No.
Is Chris Recouvreur an attorney? No.
Have you ever posted pictures after receiving them from somebody you encountered via Craigslist? No.
Do you have a lawyer yet? Yes, but not related to this situation.

P.S. Circumstantial questions aren't a thing.

Nov. 27 2012 12:40 AM

loving bob's new "scumbag slapdown" pimpstrut, it's just like what bbc does with african cannibal-presidents!

I see a TV show... Webisodes...Graphic Novels...

Nov. 25 2012 12:54 PM

Craig: they're almost entirely yes or no questions. You're not even limited to "yes" or "no" -- you can write as much or as little as you'd like. You can even explain why a question is or is not fair. I'll post your response in full, unedited. You have my email address, or you could answer here.

But you won't. You'll answer 'any' question, so long as you like the question.

Nov. 25 2012 09:18 AM
flip

@Craig

I find it unsurprising that you don't seem to know the difference between extortion and copyright issues. I find it even less surprising that you think copyright law shouldn't apply to you.

Where are the super secret pay stubs?

"Whatever happened to personal accountability? These people did this to themselves. "

And your Randian comments not withstanding - where are the super secret pay stubs? The permission slips of people who agreed to have their photos posted on the site? The documentation of David Blade as a lawyer? The proof of this $300k income from your business? The evidence that shows you've been offered money by Randazza? The special memos being sent by Big Pron to commenters, lawyers and others to pay for their assistance/silence/harassment?

"If you really care about these people, put your money where your mouth is. "

No Craig, if you really care about the truth, post the evidence.

Nov. 25 2012 07:31 AM

Ah, but see, you're lying. Your use of the IsAnybodyDown name and logo is in fact a form of advertising using our name.

Notice how easy it is to manipulate any answer to a question to say something that it doesn't actually mean? And that's why I avoid questions where my answers will be manipulated to mean something that they don't, or to say something that I didn't say.

It's not that the questions themselves are hard to answer, it's that they're loaded and vague. The way you've worded the questions, the only answers that I could possibly give would be circumstantial at best, which prompts you to hardball the questions to force the answer that you want (which again, are still circumstantial answers).

It's pointless to ask circumstantial questions to begin with.

For you, who you are is the bio on your website. I couldn't give you an answer like that for myself - I'm more complex than that. Thus, I don't have any concrete answers for any of your questions. I don't feel that, with the way the questions are phrased, that it's possible to answer any of them, really. Sorry.

Not because I can't answer them but because any answer I give to loaded, poorly written, circumstantial questions will serve no purpose other than more mindless pandering on what I did or didn't say - especially when you are trying to force your own answers rather than interpret mine, of course I'm not going to give you fuel for the Randazza cult bonfire. Duh.

Nov. 25 2012 07:02 AM

There's a handy bio about me on my website. I've never advertise on IsAnybodyDown as an attorney because I'm not an attorney and even if I were, there are cheaper ways to find creeps. I'm not, in fact, an attorney. I've never posted photos from Craigslist. I don't have a lawyer yet because I don't need one.

That was easy. I thought you weren't afraid to answer difficult questions? Or do you have an excuse for that, too?

Nov. 24 2012 10:12 PM

Moose: None of what you said is true at all. The truth is, I do feel bad for society as a whole. But, like any working person, I get over it.

Sometimes I do feel bad for people, on a purely emotional (not moral or legal) level. Then I look at any public forum, like this one - and I see this kind of stuff - and those feelings quickly go away once I realize my adversaries are just trying to victimize me. I see their lack of compassion and empathy, and it validates what I'm doing.

I certainly don't enjoy hurting other people. I don't believe that what I do hurts people on a moral or legal level.

On an emotional level it may slightly affect them, but they do it to themselves.

When a drunk driver crashes into a telephone pole, I do not see anyone calling the telephone pole, the telephone company or the men who built the telephone pole these sort of names.

Whatever happened to personal accountability? These people did this to themselves.

It's not some sort of subconscious, sociopathic behavior. It's a willful decision.

I've said previously that I do feel bad emotionally for the people, but I feel bad for society as a whole. I don't have to make special exceptions. I feel bad for everyone.

Especially my ridiculous adversaries whose entire lives now revolve around mine.

You have bad feelings as well. Do you allow them to dictate your life? Or do you work with them in order to make progress?

It's not 'sneeringly dismissive'. It's more like when you have to go to the dentist - everyone hates the dentist - but it's something that has to be done. My work, for me, on an emotional level, is like pulling my own teeth out.

It's not fun in the slightest. How any of you have gathered that I want to hurt people, or that I enjoy doing this, is beyond me. It's mentally and emotionally draining.

If you're really offering to help the supposed victims pro bono, why not just make us a legitimate offer?

You already offered us $2,500 for our website. Now we're just negotiating the price.

If you really care about these people, put your money where your mouth is.

Nov. 24 2012 09:44 PM

Adam Steinbaugh:

Who is Adam Steinbaugh?
Did Adam Steinbaugh advertise on Is Anybody Down as an attorney?
Is Adam Steinbaugh an attorney?
Have you ever posted pictures after receiving them from somebody you encountered via Craigslist?
Do you have a lawyer yet?

Nov. 24 2012 09:30 PM

Actually, you don't frown on extortion at all!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/01/gay-porns-p2p-amnesty-cough-up-1000-and-you-wont-be-sued/

However, I do and I don't engage in extortion

Nov. 24 2012 09:28 PM
Joe Pullen

@Craig Brittain

RE your comment: “Without us, you've got nothing. Randazza and White would have to go back to chasing torrent downloaders and you guys would be out of jobs as paid commenters and harassers.”

It seems Randazza and White have flourishing law practices that have no dependency on chasing torrent download copyright lawsuits. Also, I can hardly be OUT of a job as a paid commenter since I was never IN a job as a paid commenter. I do it for free just because I enjoy rubbing your nose in your stupidity. Besides, neither Randazza or White could afford me.

Nov. 24 2012 06:59 PM
flip from Laughing my a** off

Sum of Craig's comments:

No evidence provided for any assertion. Including pay stubs from anyone to me for my comments.

What a surprise!

"Why then would you imply that I'd ever bother to ask for the help of the police? Do you think they'd help someone like me? "

Aha - but have you contacted the state law boards to report their corruption? Presumably you have no previous contact with any state board. Even then, you have 'David Blade' on hand - hiring a lawyer ensures you don't need someone to believe you, you just need money to have someone fight for you.

And as a lawyer himself, one would think 'David Blade' would want to root out corrupt lawyers in his own field? Especially since these corrupt lawyers seem to be going for his job?

"Find some people who really are breaking the law and go after them, because the rest of the civilized, non-socialist, non-Obama-voting, non-left-wing, non-censorship, free market world recognizes you for the mindless vultures that you are. "

Uhuh. And you're talking to someone who lives in a country with an atheist female prime minister and universal health care. Oh and no guns.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with legality and morality. Over here we tend to frown on extortion too.

"You look like bullies. Isn't it ironic that you're being paid under the table by an anti-bullying site, BULLYVILLE, to harass us? "

You should read more Popehat. There's plenty of discussion there about how criticism is NOT bullying. If you don't like being criticised, I would suggest keeping your comments to yourself, or at least in a private forum and/or echo chamber.

"Even if everything you said was right (which is the absolute furthest thing from the truth, as I will continually reiterate), you're still scum."

So ad hom's trump evidence now?

When will you reveal the super secret pay stubs?

"In fact, being a bloodsucking, parasitic. waste of human flesh lawyer should be the only paying profession in the world and we should just make all the other professions work for free. After all, who needs them? All we need is lawyers, lawyers, lawyers. "

So you hate 'David Blade', your friend? You'll stop taking his money for advertising? Boy, your consistency is unbelievable.

"Scan the entirety of the comments posted against me and you'll find that my opponents arguments consist almost entirely of MST's, without any neutral, unbiased logic - "

Yeah asking for evidence is exactly the same as social manipulation. Interesting that 'MST' is about the subjugation of women.

Here's a clue Craig: go learn about logical fallacies. You might realise that YOU are the one using them. The rest of us are just waiting for the evidence to come in...

The more you type, the more ludicrous you sound. Your lawyer really should keep you away from the internet, lest you damage your defense any further.

Nov. 24 2012 02:45 PM

Craig: I just have a few simple questions. I haven't seen a direct answer to these questions from you anywhere yet.

1. Who is David Blade?
2. Did David Blade advertise on IsAnybodyDown as an attorney?
3. Is David Blade an attorney?
4. Have you ever posted pictures after receiving them from somebody you encountered via Craigslist?
5. Do you have a lawyer yet?

Nov. 24 2012 08:43 AM

Also, the circular and contradictory logic in play here is classic double bind - you tell the people that I'm too stupid to have a real job - while simultaneously telling them I should get a real job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

Scan the entirety of the comments posted against me and you'll find that my opponents arguments consist almost entirely of MST's, without any neutral, unbiased logic -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques

Nov. 24 2012 08:25 AM

The police don't care about squabbles and hearsay or back and forth, they're too busy dealing with crime, you know, actual crime?

Not the fake crime that you keep accusing me of, which has no foundation in reality or legal basis whatsoever outside of your internet circle jerk.

Real crime, as in, you know, protecting and serving and such.

I obey the laws to the fullest. I run a successful, legal business. Any attempts to paint it as anything else are just nonsense.

Without us, you've got nothing. Randazza and White would have to go back to chasing torrent downloaders and you guys would be out of jobs as paid commenters and harassers.

The police are far too busy to be troubled - And I don't need their help to deal with a bunch of lifeless internet castaways desperately clinging to the shreds of the Randazza/White shipwreck.

You've already said that I'm a felon. Why then would you imply that I'd ever bother to ask for the help of the police? Do you think they'd help someone like me?

Do you think anyone is going to help someone like me, even before you take into account what I do now?

We fought for years. Now, the second we get a shot at having our own houses and our own lives, a bunch of bloodthirsty ambulance chasing parasites want to take away what we've fought so hard to earn.

We don't need the police. We've seen tougher than your kind. You're cowards who will do nothing. Give it up.

Find some people who really are breaking the law and go after them, because the rest of the civilized, non-socialist, non-Obama-voting, non-left-wing, non-censorship, free market world recognizes you for the mindless vultures that you are.

You look like bullies. Isn't it ironic that you're being paid under the table by an anti-bullying site, BULLYVILLE, to harass us?

Do you really need a mob of millionaire lawyers to harass a couple of middle class citizens?

Even if everything you said was right (which is the absolute furthest thing from the truth, as I will continually reiterate), you're still scum.

You can't contend with ACTUAL criminals, those people are scary. So instead, you invent criminals! You say 'A-ha! They're making money! They must be breaking the law!'

No.

You guys don't pick on the tow truck driver that cleans up car wrecks - he profits from people's injuries. Or the car insurance companies, you don't go after them. You don't pick on doctors who fix people up that get shot, obviously it's terrible that they're profiting from people's misery, they should just work for free too.

In fact, being a bloodsucking, parasitic. waste of human flesh lawyer should be the only paying profession in the world and we should just make all the other professions work for free. After all, who needs them? All we need is lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.

Nov. 24 2012 08:18 AM

Nicholas: There is no criminal indictment, nor will there ever be, because I, as I've said a million times, have not broken any laws.

Randazza's clients are contacting other people and breaching confidentiality of their own accord - I'm not contacting them, but they're making statements other places - the ship is sinking.

We've got arrowslits, a fortress, a giant moat and a drawbridge, and you can't find anyone to push your old, outdated ram. Give it up.

Nov. 24 2012 08:04 AM
Jess

So I needed a good laugh and I got one. Just to make sure I have Mr. Brittains latest rant correct, he seems to believe a website with no visible means of revenue other than 90 or so people who have paid a fictitious lawyer $250-$300 each generating at a maximum a whole whopping $30,090. So a busy lawyer like Marc Randazza who Mr. Brittain has stated he already believes makes around $2.5M a year is going to fuss around with trying to replicate or take over a poorly designed website that ranks only slightly more interesting than watching grass grow and brings in less than $30,000 annually because ?????? Riiiggghhht – because that totally makes sense – NOT.
I think we could logically reduce this equation to three simple options. Mr. Brittain is either:
1. Trolling and posting outrageous whoppers for the fun of poking everyone and seeing if he can get a rise
2. Doing everything he can to make himself look mentally unbalanced so he can use insanity as a defense when the legal shit storm finally comes
3. Truly believes everything he is saying which makes him certifiably bat crazy
Either way, we cannot expect Mr. Brittain to truthfully tell us which of the above it is.

Nov. 23 2012 08:52 PM
Nicholas Weaver

Craig: Your contacting Randazza's potential clients? Are you looking to add witness tampering to a criminal indictment?

Nov. 23 2012 10:35 AM
Moose

Taking joy in the humiliation and suffering of others. Zero compassion, zero humanity, sneeringly dismissive of other peoples' feelings and lives, all with an out-of-control yet emotionless sense of entitlement.

This - along with a total lack of empathy - is basically the clinical profile of a severely sociopathic narcissist. It's the kind of mental make-up that serial killers demonstrate.

I think having a lot of people dislike him is the least of Mr. Brittain's problems.

Nov. 23 2012 12:24 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

@Chris

I agree that trust must be earned, but at the same time I look at convictions that are old as an indication to be tentative, not to dismiss someone out of hand. If they are, on the other hand, continually butting the law on a recent basis, then I'd be less inclined to care. I'm sure I'd be considered naive; I like to think of it as willing to meet in the middle.

Having said that, the issue is moot since Craig shows he's incapable of being consistent with the truth.

(I'm not sure about the web development skills. If one can't read an Alexa graph, one has little ability to do much development)

Nov. 22 2012 09:59 AM

"Don't be fooled by their schemes to steal your photos and repost them. "

The irony is strong in this one.

Nov. 22 2012 05:18 AM
Chris Recouvreur from California

Flip, no it's not fair. However it's reality. Once you have a felony under your belt, you aren't afforded a lot of trust. Trust is earned, not an entitlement. You may be afforded some trust without earning it (usually from family members) but once it's lost, it takes a monumental effort to reclaim. Craig needs a dose of reality, he obviously has some web development skills, but thinks he can take shortcuts and find an easy win.

Nov. 22 2012 02:44 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

@Adam

"Another question: what the hell does your traffic convert to? You don't have any ads aside from Chance and the "independent" "takedown hammer". "

You bring up an excellent point. Even if we believed Craig's comments about his visitor numbers, that doesn't solve the question of how in the world he manages to turn it into a $300k website. The only way to do that is with advertising, and we know who advertises there (does David Blade really spend $300k on advertising on some smut website?), with angels (and no self-respecting private investor would go near this), with paid memberships (which he doesn't have), or with some serious financial backing from his own pocket (aka running at a loss).

There's no way in hell he's earning anything except through... oh yes, extortion.

@Chris

"No one believes an ex-con anyways. Craig Brittain the felon expects that anyone is going to believe that 2 members of the Bar who are held in relative high regard in their communities are conspiring to take his website idea (which he stole from Hunter Moore)?"

I think that's unfair to ex-cons who actually don't go on to commit further crimes. Craig is unbelievable all by himself, he doesn't need the stereotype of felony to prove that he's a liar.

Nov. 22 2012 01:57 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

@Craig

"We now have conclusive proof that Randazza and White are intending to start their own website that is like mine and that they are only doing this to attempt to steal our content so they can launch their own website. The supposed 'lawsuit' is actually a hoax, the real goal is to steal the content from our website and use it to launch their own rival website. Ignore the lies, realize that Randazza and White are simply trying to steal a functioning business. "

Ah so you choose to ignore me, continue ranting about 'evidence', but never post it.

Have you gone to the police with your evidence?
The state boards?
Posted it for the world to see?

Or have you merely pretended to have said evidence?

I seriously hope you get to a court where someone can request you to provide such 'conclusive proof'.

And if one just wanted to 'steal' the content from your site, then all they'd have to do is copy and paste. It doesn't take a genius to work out that one. And even if they did 'steal' the content, seeing as how in your eyes it's all under fair use and/or submitted by users, then it doesn't matter: they can go and freely post the content on as many websites as they want. *If* another website popped up like yours, the only thing anyone could say about it is that people who want to share nude photos will find any outlet, every outlet. It's no different to posting the same video on Youtube and then posting it to Vimeo. Assuming your POV was valid.

So why go to all the trouble of creating a hoax law suit? Your logic is in serious want of a clue stick.

"We achieved in the past 6 months what took you 8 years to do"

Uhuh - now let's see you keep the spike that only appeared because some people criticised you. Do you even know what "long tail" refers to?

"The bonus traffic from the 'bounce traffic' that reads news websites is generally worthless (i.e. the people that read Ken or Marc's websites - they don't convert for jack and aren't worth anything). "

The bonus traffic is *your only traffic*. Alexa shows you to have practically no hits before this whole thing erupted. Which means that conversions must have been pitiful beforehand anyway.

"We're not going to share anything with a bunch of cultists. Instead, we'll use the information to our advantage where it counts. "

Ah, I see. The old and unoriginal "super-secret documents that will be revealed when it's time" card. Craig honey, if you think you're the first or last to use that tired old bull hockey, you're seriously mistaken.

The only thing it does is make you look like more of a liar, not less.

"Rest assured that the information does exist and we're sharing it with the necessary parties, like any of Randazza's potential clients - "

Oh - so you *have* taken it to the police and/or state boards?

"Don't be fooled by their schemes to steal your photos and repost them. "

Thank goodness for their inability to figure out how to use right-click then.

Nov. 22 2012 01:57 AM
Chris Recouvreur from California

Craig, do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously when you change stories daily on the motives of people to not like you. Every person who looks at your site knows why we don't like you. It's no secret. You exploit girls who don't authorize their pictures to be used commercially. No one believes an ex-con anyways. Craig Brittain the felon expects that anyone is going to believe that 2 members of the Bar who are held in relative high regard in their communities are conspiring to take his website idea (which he stole from Hunter Moore)? Obviously you've been celebrating the legalization of Marijuana in Colorado a little too hard.

Nov. 21 2012 09:04 PM

Another question: what the hell does your traffic convert to? You don't have any ads aside from Chance and the "independent" "takedown hammer".

Nov. 21 2012 08:55 PM

You're contacting Randazza's potential clients -- meaning David Blade's clients? Shouldn't he be doing that himself?

Also, you have conclusive proof of lots of things, but you won't share it. Very credible.

Nov. 21 2012 08:41 PM

We're not going to share anything with a bunch of cultists. Instead, we'll use the information to our advantage where it counts.

Rest assured that the information does exist and we're sharing it with the necessary parties, like any of Randazza's potential clients -

They should know the following three things.

1. He's not working pro bono, he's being paid by numerous people including Bullyville, Hunter Moore and Manwin/Playboy.

2. Hunter Moore is paying Randazza and his cult to try and take us offline so that he can launch his new website.

3. Your pictures won't be taken down if you side with Randazza, White, and Hunter Moore - they're collecting and archiving the pictures from our website, but first they have to get rid of us so he can start his new website. That's what this 'lawsuit' is really about.

Don't be fooled by their schemes to steal your photos and repost them.

Nov. 21 2012 08:37 PM

RealityCheck: We have the same per capita percentage of traffic that Google did after 6 months.

We were getting 10,000 visits per day before these interviews. From recurring, real viewers. And now we've got even more of them.

The bonus traffic from the 'bounce traffic' that reads news websites is generally worthless (i.e. the people that read Ken or Marc's websites - they don't convert for jack and aren't worth anything).

Our traffic, on the other hand... They work for us.

BLACK FRIDAY. It's gonna be hot this year!

Nov. 21 2012 08:33 PM

Chris: Ken's website has been online for 8 years

Our website has been online for not even 1 year

We achieved in the past 6 months what took you 8 years to do

Nov. 21 2012 08:30 PM

Please, share that proof.

Nov. 21 2012 08:28 PM

We now have conclusive proof that Randazza and White are intending to start their own website that is like mine and that they are only doing this to attempt to steal our content so they can launch their own website.

The supposed 'lawsuit' is actually a hoax, the real goal is to steal the content from our website and use it to launch their own rival website.

Ignore the lies, realize that Randazza and White are simply trying to steal a functioning business.

Nov. 21 2012 08:26 PM
Mike M from PIttsburgh, PA

Wait, one more thing...

Does isanybodydown.com make the distributors of pictures sign a non-compete agreement so that the pictures are posted only on its website? Just checking to see that Craig Brittain really is following through on his efforts to provide the safe haven he is aiming for.

Nov. 21 2012 02:16 PM
Mike M from Pittsburgh, PA

Reading through Craig Brittain's abundant comments, I can't go without commenting on his claim that "The public nature of our website actually lends to the safety factor..." and all of the tortured reasoning behind.

Craig's logic is the logic of the sociopathic opportunist, pure and simple, and it goes something like this...

Given that someone is going to be exploited, at least I provide a more controlled and profitable environment for exploitation. Instead of someone being very surprised and embarrassed at finding their picture on some random websites, with low probability of being found, I provide an alternative with the opposite tradeoff: higher probability of being found along with lower experience of surprise and several seconds less of intense embarrassment -- I provide a heads up, after all. Those whose pictures are posted against their will can say to their friends, "Do me a favor and never visit the website isanybodydown.com."

Nov. 21 2012 02:14 PM
flip from Laughing my a** off

@Joe

I agree entirely about him and whoppers. He's basically your average idiot who thinks no one will call him on his 'facts'.

@Craig

If you haven't read what I've said, how do you know I'm a sock puppet? Maybe I've been defending you and you never knew it because you never read what I wrote....

Have you got any proof that I'm a sock puppet? Or that your increase in stats are not related solely to the heat being heaped upon you now?

Nobody here honestly would fall for your continued reliance on ad hominems and logical fallacies. In fact, everyone here can look at your stats for themselves and see that the only 'rise' in visits coincides with Randazza et al getting people to pay attention to your site. If you want to take credit for being a 'badass' and pretend like this was your game plan all along, then fine. But otherwise, you simply look like a fool for trying to compare a low-interest website with Google, IBM, NASA or anyone else.

As the others have picked up on: your spike in stats is temporary and will disappear the moment your internet access has been revoked and you present no further danger to the people you've harassed.

Maybe you haven't heard of the term... "meme". I think you're more of a net noob than you think.

Basically Craig: put up or shut up.

Here's another question for you, it's a good one and worth leaving til last:

If you've been getting harassed by lawyers, sock puppets, DDOS attacks; if you have proof of corruption; if you have proof that Big Pron is out to get you....

Have you taken this proof to your local police station?
Have you taken this proof to the relevant state law boards?
Have you taken this proof to anyone at all?

Nov. 21 2012 01:13 AM
Jess

I feel compelled to repeat one of my favorite posts of all time from a satirical site about Charles Carreon - - - -

Dear Mr Carreon

My name is David Blade, I am the Takedown Hammer. I have an…lets say, arrangement, with Is Anybody Down. See, I help people whose pictures and information end up on the sight get it down, for a small fee. I’m friends with the admins so its easy for me to get things done. But recently those meddling kids over at Popehat and LegalSatyricon are creating a whole heap of trouble for me. I think a defamation suit is in order, and being that this is out of my area of expertise, I happily accept you offer for help.

Your plan of action is reasonable. My only request is that along with the money, you demand Zombie Kittens…I need them for a side project that you and your dinosaurs will probably be interested in. I also want your wife Tara to get busy on more MS Paint pictures of these people who dare accuse me of such terrible things (I mean, I only run a revenge porn sight…I mean I KNOW someone who runs one, yeah. Its not like I’m a dirty lowlife or anything), I need them to decorate my new website because right now it looks too much like that lawyer wannbe Adam Steinbaugh’s page.

I have put out a bounty program to get your DNA laden amber and will be sending my the archives of the website over soon.

I look forward to working with you.

Craig…I mean David, yeah.

David Blade, III

Nov. 20 2012 11:52 PM
Tali

@Jess
Not only does Craig not live there, I'm fairly certain he doesn't even come visit on occasion.

Nov. 20 2012 08:59 PM
Jess

@Adam – the picture that came to mind when you said that was this http://www.zeldaeternity.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/great-ships-the-titanic-300x225.jpg

@Chris- Isanybodydown.com is ranked #86,564 in the world according to the three-month Alexa traffic rankings. So it’s basically about as interesting as watching grass grow. The spike in rankings is temporary and will die down when the fickle audience of the internet tires of Mr. Brittains “been there done that” juvenile antics. Craig also throws yet another whopper out there stating Isanybodydown.com is ranked #1 in the Netherlands regardless of the fact that Alexa Regional Traffic ranks it at 2,057 in the Netherlands. So apparently in Craig’s world 1 = 2,057 much the same way as extorting money via a fake lawyer alias = not breaking the law. The real problem is simply this - there is this place called reality, unfortunately Craig doesn’t live there.

Nov. 20 2012 08:39 PM
Chris Recouvreur from California.

Craig, you've had 2 measurable traffic spikes in the past 3 months. If you go back 6 months, you've had those same 2 traffic spikes. 1 happened when Marc Randazza broke the news about your site, the other when various online outlets did pieces on you and the NPR interview. You must be very proud of all your hard work. Very good work Craig. I am so impressed, I must have been wrong about you the whole time. Oh and if you think Ken's site is a bunch of nobodies, check out his alexa stats for the past 6 months vs your stats. How quaint.

Nov. 20 2012 06:37 PM

How nice that the captain thinks the crowds have gathered along the shore to witness his ship set sail.

Nov. 20 2012 04:58 PM
RealityCheck

"it's on par with Google, who reached the traffic level that we did in about 5-6 months."

Now that wouldn't have anything to do with Google having been established in 1998, would it? Ya know, when the number of people on the internet amounted to diddly squat and there was no social media...

Nov. 20 2012 04:03 PM

This article and all of the press is a result of something I built, it's a result of US - not a bunch of lowlife lawyers with a blog that no one except their Kool-Aid Cult visits

Nov. 20 2012 03:56 PM

Our website, while registered in Dec 2011, was actually 'started' in mid April/Early May 2012, right after the original IAU died.

Here's an undeniable fact - In the span of under 7 months we've become one of the top websites in the US.

That's faster growth than:

1. The original IsAnyoneUp, which took 18 months to reach where we are now
2. Facebook (22 months)
3. Myspace (17 months)
4. Twitter (13 months)

And it's on par with Google, who reached the traffic level that we did in about 5-6 months.

Nov. 20 2012 03:46 PM

Flip, no one read a single thing you said. You're just another sock puppet account posting a wall-of-text in order to cover up the truth which is that you guys essentially work for the Randazza cult. Why don't YOU get real jobs instead of messing with us?

You're not moralists trying to protect people, you're sharks trying to steal publicity and money from me.

Here's hoping you all get cancer.

Nov. 20 2012 03:41 PM

These sock puppets that are paid by Randazza to comment are also engaging in DDoS attacks against our server, by the way.

Nov. 20 2012 03:37 PM

@flip - it appears Craig skips through his imagination and picks out the most outrageous whoppers he can possibly make up and throws them out there as facts. He apparently believes if he simpy says it enough times it will magically become true. Oh if only.

I am now of the opinion Craig is not operating with a full deck.

Nov. 20 2012 10:43 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

As for everything else: I've read all of the evidence from Steinbaugh, Popehat and Randazza. I've even had a look at your Twitter account and your website, and even the stuff posted by Anonymous. I'm just curious: will you be posting any evidence of your own to prove that those people are lying? (Or evidence that you're actually employed for web design/development, because your site's pretty Web 1.0)

I wait with unbaited breath...

And also... the only 'distraction' here is the one you present where you continually try to pretend that the law doesn't apply to you. You're not only very transparent, but your arguments are twice so.

Nov. 20 2012 09:33 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

The sum of your comments is: the crank is strong with you. Logical fallacies, ad hominems, distractions from the questions, an unwillingness to post evidence, appeals to conspiracies, cries of 'freedom', and oh yes... the fact that you still don't understand the issue despite it being explained to you in plain English.

Post some frigging evidence, and I might actually turn around and defend you. That is, if you have any.

"It's only you ridiculous liberals that want a socialist police state."

And yet another dimbulb who doesn't understand the difference between socialism and dictatorships. Why don't you join the throng of Republicans who are moving to other countries?

"The internet does not need rules or regulations of any kind nor should moralists attempt to bend the law to their whims in order to force their morals upon people like me."

Uhuh. And unfortunately for you, the internet is also made up of other countries with other laws and one country doesn't get to dictate restrictions or lack of them to any other country. Or have you not passed geography at school yet?

""I have no job"... Sure you do, you're paid slave wages to be Randazza's cult follower. How does that feel? Just drink his Kool-Aid and he'll make sure you don't get evicted from your 1 room apartment in the ghetto. "

Hmmm, it makes me feel like laughing actually. Considering that you are way off base. And not even close to offending me or scaring me. Honestly, you have the originality of a crank too.

PS. Randazza or White should send me my check. I haven't gotten it yet and I badly need to fill my pockets with some of that Big Pron dollars!

"I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I'm not using those terms in a racial sense but rather indicating that most of these Randazza cultists are living in poverty, and that they have been promised large sums of money if they keep making disparaging comments about me - i.e. drinking the Kool-Aid"

Oh, honey dear, that's nice of you to worry about me. Especially since I am an artist and pretty poor long before I even started reading about this little kerfuffle you're having (so poor = 10 years, reading law blogs = less than 1). But hey, since we're both artists, I guess we have a lot in common. Are you living in suburbia too? We're about the same age, although I'm a bit older. (I guess also wiser) And I'm white like you. So I suppose the offense I was supposed to have amounts to no more than a passing idea that you're heading towards a Godwin fallacy.

Nov. 20 2012 09:33 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

"We're rubbing shoulders with IBM and NASA. Your opinion pales in the face of REAL facts."

Facts that you insist on not linking to. Well, your right. Assertions without evidence is just *so* darn convincing /end sarcasm

If your business were worth so much, how is it you can't get a job? I know many web dev guys and musicians, and none of them have problems getting work - even freelance - with a good portfolio, or putting out their own music and touring the world with it. Heck, there are plenty of well-known websites out there that by and large offer inaccurate information and quite regularly get trounced for doing so. Argumentum ad populum is yet another unconvincing remark.

... But apparently you have a $300k business AND can't find an employer AND/OR a legitimate source of income? Yeah, that really smacks as plausible. Like others have said, there's plenty you can do without resorting to this. Go join McDonald's or something.

-- By the way, you seem not to have realised that 'high' stats are just an inflation due to the spotlight being turned on your crappy enterprise. If you weren't paying attention, that graph on Alexa clearly shows a rise about the time that the lawyers started in on you. Looking at the traffic stats also shows a HUGE peak ... at October/November. And before then you had about as many hits as your average crappy website. Take a look at the max stats on the traffic stats graph. Anybody who can insist their website is doing well based on a spike of one month versus barely anything over 2 years has their head completely in the sand.

If you're on par with IBM and NASA, then that's only because you seem to be discounting age, recency, and the long tail... Not to mention most people's distaste for what you're doing.

Nov. 20 2012 09:32 AM
flip from Laughing my a** off

Ah, frack... no HTML allowed on this site apparently? And most recent comments at the top, WTF is that?

@Craig

Yeah, I'm unemployed because I'm lazy - I thought unemployment was to do with Obama?

My 'wall of text' was not a distraction. I asked for evidence of your conspiracies, and you reply with "why even bother?" If you have something to show that Big Pron is after you, I think most people would turn around and go "hey, these lawyers *are* scum" and help you defend yourself. Until then you just make yourself sound like a whining little girl whose only recourse is to scream conspiracy. Even when there is none.

Nov. 20 2012 09:31 AM
RealityCheck

"The allegations of racism are blatantly false"

These are Craig's Steam profiles:

http://steamcommunity.com/id/craigtheunholy/namehistory
http://steamcommunity.com/id/siegheilhitler/namehistory

These are Craig's Wikipedia edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.70.221.14

Judge for yourselves.

Nov. 20 2012 08:13 AM
Adam Steinbaugh

Man, I hope I'm getting paid a lot. Anyone know how much I'm supposed to get?

Nov. 20 2012 07:46 AM

Adding an additional comment - I'm equal opportunity and I oppose racism and once again, you can find every type of person on my website. The allegations of racism are blatantly false and because I used the words 'slave' and 'ghetto' in my last comment, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I'm not using those terms in a racial sense but rather indicating that most of these Randazza cultists are living in poverty, and that they have been promised large sums of money if they keep making disparaging comments about me - i.e. drinking the Kool-Aid

Nov. 20 2012 07:40 AM

"I have no job"... Sure you do, you're paid slave wages to be Randazza's cult follower. How does that feel? Just drink his Kool-Aid and he'll make sure you don't get evicted from your 1 room apartment in the ghetto.

Nov. 20 2012 07:36 AM

Now more than ever, we need a completely free and unrestricted internet. The internet does not need rules or regulations of any kind nor should moralists attempt to bend the law to their whims in order to force their morals upon people like me. The internet was always meant to be a 100% free state.

The law as it stands protects me and I've done nothing wrong. The allegations of wrongdoing are an attempt to make laws out of morals (which is the worst type of legislative policy you can possibly have).

The USA was not founded on morals. It was founded on FREEDOM. We need FREEDOM now more than ever. You're entitled to whatever morals you want to live by, but I'm not bound by them.

Furthermore, Randazza and White and their cult are just sharks - you should all also know that these sock puppets are paid by Randazza and White to push their opinions at any cost - pretty sad that they have to buy friends because no one actually likes or respects a bunch of copyright troll thieves.

Nov. 20 2012 07:34 AM
RealityCheck

http://alexa.com/siteinfo/isanybodydown.com

"We're rubbing shoulders with IBM and NASA. Your opinion pales in the face of REAL facts."

Let's take a look at these "real facts":

isanybodydown.com Rank: 89,325 Global, 19,244 USA.

IBM.com Rank: 551 Global, 640 USA.
Nasa.gov Rank: 711 Global, 491 USA

Pretty strange definition of "rubbing shoulders" employed here methinks.
88,614 places away from Nasa globally and 18,604 places away from IBM in the USA... yeah, that's like a sewer rat saying that they are rubbing shoulders with the millionaire in the Penthouse.

Nov. 20 2012 07:33 AM

I still can't believe that in an enlightened, modern society, that there are still people who want to falsely accuse anyone who makes money of being a criminal, and people who want bigger government and more laws.

The average citizen in the US wants less government and less laws. It's only you ridiculous liberals that want a socialist police state.

The good news is that hopefully the secession requests of many states will be granted soon, and thus each state will become a separate entity, thus disconnecting separating rational human beings from New York, California, Pennsylvania and Nevada FOREVER.

Nov. 20 2012 07:29 AM

flip: That's not because you're moral.

That's because you're LAZY.

The rest of what you wrote is just a wall of text, a distraction. Why even bother?

My business as it stands, content and all, with the exposure it gets - is worth upwards of $300,000 now. We are in the top 20,000 websites in the world this week, top 40,000 this month, top 80,000 on a three month scale, according to alexa.

http://alexa.com/siteinfo/isanybodydown.com

We're rubbing shoulders with IBM and NASA. Your opinion pales in the face of REAL facts.

Nov. 20 2012 07:15 AM
flip from NOYDB

Brittain's comments remind me of arguments against suffrage and so forth: "we're not letting you vote because we're really just trying to keep you from being exploited from people who don't want you to exercise your conscience freely"... etc.

Also Craig, if you're reading: I have no job at the moment. And yes, I would rather starve than do the crap you're doing. (I suppose one can think that at least in prison you get feed, clothed, and have a roof over your head...)

By the way, not everyone here or commenting elsewhere is a lawyer: some people actually have experience in web development companies. So those people would also be pretty well aware of how much your "successful" business would be worth - not much.

<blockquote>Stay classy.</blockquote>

Blech, if your definition of 'classy' is doing illegal and immoral things, I'd rather not.

<blockquote> If the people weren't posted on our website, many of them would just be posted on a different website. Is Anybody Down is the safest of any of the websites in our niche. </blockquote>

Ah, the old "we're not part of the problem, we're just part of the problem" argument.

<blockquote>31% of the people who heard this interview actually sided with us</blockquote>

Will anybody in a court of law ask you to reveal documentation and evidence of these statistics - or any of your conspiracy-laden ideas? I really, really hope so.

<blockquote>I don't feel any better or worse, as a neutral, unbiased purveyor of other people's submitted nudes, than the news reporter who covers violent crimes (murder, rape), than the repo man who takes people's things away, than the tow truck driver who cleans up a drunk driver's wreck, than anyone in society. </blockquote>

and

<blockquote>Being an independent journalist and objective poster of other people's submitted content gets you accused of being an immoral, sociopathic pervert based on blatant lies...</blockquote>

OMG it's worse than I thought. He actually believes he's a journalist...

<blockquote>There you have it ladies and gentlemen. An expert with a Ph.D. said it on THE INTERNET.

IT MUST BE TRUE!!! </blockquote>

And yet he sees no irony in that statement.

Nov. 20 2012 06:23 AM

Joe: There's a hundred million other talented writers. There's a hundred million other musicians. There's a hundred million of everything. Good? Bad? It's a numbers game. You throw your lot in, and if you don't win, you move on. I didn't win the 'famous writer' lottery or the 'stand-up comedian' lottery or the 'famous musician' lottery. Hell, I didn't even win the 'normal daily routine American Dream' lottery.

I won the 'Is Anybody Down' lottery, though. The chance to be notable and famous (infamous? sure) before I leave this world.

If Ken was so good at being a Federal Prosecutor, why did he quit? Here's a hint... he's greedy, and not that good. Any legitimacy he had was consumed by greed years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they were planning to find someone else in light of his failings.

I do not 'modify' the content, to clarify. I only format it. The content itself is unchanged.

I haven't done anything illegal via Is Anybody Down. Duh.

Here's a great article that you'll all want to read today! Looks like I'm not alone after all.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/23/almost-all-homemade-pornography-ends-up-on-online-study-finds

Nov. 20 2012 04:43 AM
Chris Recouvreur from California

Wow. I leave for a few hours and Craig goes down the rabbit hole like a honey badger on an LSD laced amphetamine rage. So lets get this clear. Because an escort in Las Vegas retweeted me, I now am a supporter of prostitution? Great argument there, very convincing, I applaud your efforts. I have heard both Ken and Marcs voices on various web events and Ken's voice is nothing like Marc's.

You also seem to not know what sort of law Ken practices and seriously discount how good Marc is at his job. Ken by the way is a former Federal Prosecutor. These are not the sort of people who you challenge based on your cliff notes derived knowledge of law. I'm sure reading wikipedia articles made you feel smart, however you are dealing with people who have made a living tracking down evidence, perserving it, and then bringing the heavy hammer of justice down upon people like you.

The fact that you claim to modify and review content means you are MORE liable than other automated upload services. In fact I'll be archiving this thread incase anyone needs it. I am sure OTM will have logged the IP address associated with the account you created here. What makes you think you are so smart when you've self admittedly never succeeded at anything (even begging) in your life, and the one thing you think is working is illegal and was a cheap ripoff from another person's idea?

Nov. 20 2012 04:02 AM

Craig:

I'm a fair kinda guy. You specifically tell me what I've stated is false and provide proof it's false and I'll apolgise and retract that statement.

I'm waiting.

Nov. 20 2012 03:38 AM
Adam Steinbaugh from Los Angeles, CA

David Blade never advertised on IsAnybodyDown as an attorney?

Nov. 20 2012 03:26 AM

Craig:

Seriously I don’t know why you do what you do since I think you have some other talents you should explore - that was seriously funny dude. Hostess Brands PhD in Twinkyology. You write decently well, you just need to stay away from whatever chemicals are robbing you of your reason because the stuff you’re posting is simply not based in reality.

As far as your other response of “I gave you an answer. All of that stuff is made up and has no factual basis. That's all the answer you need.” Nope - not good enough. A question is not made up – it is a question and nothing more. They are legitimate questions which you have not and apparently cannot answer. The fact you continue to dodge them is in of itself an answer.

Nov. 20 2012 03:25 AM

What about the fact that you are using your fake names to knowingly spread false, damaging, libelous material yourselves, and then in turn accusing me of doing it? The reason is that we have too many laws in our society and that they are ineffective - which really allows for mobs like the Randazza/White Cult to spread these lies about me and my business and get away with it.

On my website, all of the content is user-submitted and wholly neutral. I'm not responsible for any of it, under 230/TCA 1996. I screen it for validity and then I format the submissions sent to me by the users. This makes me a neutral third party, not unlike Facebook or any other social media website.

If a user tells me to post it in the 'Herps Confirmed' area, I do so - again, they are wholly responsible for their own submissions according to the contract provisions.

The 'David Blade' poltergeist is a complete fabrication assembled entirely by the Randazza lynch mob. There's no neutral record of such a thing ever having existed in the manner which the Randazza/White Cult describes it, which is why I won't answer questions about things that never happened to begin with.

Nov. 20 2012 03:20 AM

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. An expert with a Ph.D. said it on THE INTERNET.

IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

Nov. 20 2012 03:08 AM

I gave you an answer. All of that stuff is made up and has no factual basis. That's all the answer you need.

I could make a bogus statement too, as a hypothetical: How come you singlehandedly drove Hostess out of business? I have a Ph.D. in Twinkieology sitting next to me and he traced your computer and IP address and we've got concrete proof that Randazza, White and 'Joe Pullen' are the reason you can no longer purchase Twinkies at retail establishments.

Come on, how come you did it! ANSWER THE QUESTION ALREADY!

Nov. 20 2012 03:07 AM

Craig: There is a big difference between posting under a fake name and using that same fake name to illegally solicit funds from someone. You've done that, I haven't. So no, it's not the same thing. How about you stop beating around the bush and just answer the questions I've posed? Or can't you?

Nov. 20 2012 03:07 AM

In fact, the Randazza/White lynch mob are the only ones who have any faith in what you all are saying.

The rest of the internet as a whole knows about the reputations of Randazza and White as copyright trolls, extortionists and enemies of free speech and the open internet, as well as ambulance chasers and hypocrites.

There is not a single person in this country who, when shown all of the REAL facts (read: not the bogus lies that you're circulating about me, but the straight-from-the-horses-mouth admissions by Randazza and White that they're demanding payments for torrent downloads that they can't even verify were the same John Does) will blame me for a second because of the complete lack of a decent reputation of Randazza and White. The world knows what they are about because they've had twelve years to irreparably damage their own reputations to any and everyone in the tech/legal world, which is why the EFF, ACLU and practically any and every other decent lawyer or legal expert in the world absolutely abhors, detests and discredits any statements that they have ever made or will ever attempt to make.

tl;dr You have a guy who has 12 years of being scum on his record making blatantly false accusations in order to bolster his own waning notability and popularity to everyone who isn't one of his cultist puppets, drinking the Randazza/White Kool-Aid.

Nov. 20 2012 03:05 AM

Craig: a question but no answers. Still no anwers. Wny not just answer the questions?

Nov. 20 2012 03:00 AM

I wonder if sock puppets are entitled to legal council. Ha.

Nov. 20 2012 02:59 AM

Joe Pullen: You've stated that you are using a fake name. Aren't you just blindly and falsely accusing me of something you admitted to doing yourself a few paragraphs ago?

Nov. 20 2012 02:57 AM

I've already answered all of those questions with a simple statement... all of them are unfounded lies with no factual basis and they are the opinions of the Randazza/White lynch mob that manufactured them. They have no factual basis in reality, which is why I don't even acknowledge those questions.

They're a fabrication. They're entirely made up. Question answered.

Nov. 20 2012 02:56 AM

In addendum, none of you are anti-authoritarian enough to be true Libertarians.

True Libertarians would never advocate using blatant lies about legality against someone - because true Libertarians recognize the need for as few laws as possible, and recognize that every law that is created reduces and limits Constitutionally allotted freedom - that the Bill of Rights is merely the smallest of evils - that the Police State needs to stop - that the Drug War needs to end - that we should only incarcerate the most violent criminals - and that we need to reduce government to the smallest role possible.

What I do is pure Libertarianism. I'm exercising my freedoms under the law, the way the law is written, and it's 100% legal. I haven't done any of the things that have been alleged. Using the law to the fullest extent, to your own advantage, is what the laws are there for. Laws are truly intended to protect the working and middle class - not to provide ammunition for rich, bloated lawyers.

However, somewhere along the line, justice became a product to be bought and sold. Randazza and White ran out of gay porn/movie/music downloaders to demand payments from, Republicans to sue, and ambulances to chase - so they decided to attack my website -

Despite the fact that Randazza and White were advisors to Michael Fattorosi, Donny Long and pornwikileaks, which they thoroughly endorsed and supported.

These are money-grubbing sharks that run sock puppets to endorse their own beliefs. They are socialists and communists who intend to manipulate authoritarianism to their own ends.

There has never been a better time to reduce the role of government, to reduce the number of laws and/or to completely deregulate the internet. The government has no right to interfere with the lives or businesses of private citizens.

In this case, my freedom and your freedom are equivalent. If you are against my freedom, you are against the first amendment, against capitalism, against democracy and against the American Dream and the United States of America as a country.

Nov. 20 2012 02:53 AM

Craig, You literally just make shit up. “ the people that have spoken to both of them via phone identified the voice as being the same voice” What people? Who exactly are these people? Are they green? Can you see them? Must be some good stuff you’re on there. More to the point, do you have ANY idea of how silly you sound.

Yet again you have avoided and have been completely unable to answer the following:

- If the people depicted on his site consented, then why would they have needed the services of the “takedown lawyer David Blade”?

- Why are you unable to provide any concrete factual proof that David Blade exists and is not either you or Chance Trahan.

- Why the emails from both you and David Blade came from the same IP address using the same obscure email service and from the same computer as per extensive forensics performed by a PhD in Internet Security.

- Why and under what statute, payments made to “David Bladed” would NOT be considered wire fraud.

- How and under what statute posing as an attorney and accepting fees as an attorney when one is not an attorney would not a class six felony in Colorado.

- How posting a photo of someone and labeling it as herpes confirmed without that person’s consent and actual medical record confirmation would in fact not be libel.

You are incapable of answering the above questions because you can’t. That pretty much says it all. You're all talk and no facts.

Nov. 20 2012 02:49 AM

Only in 2012...

Being an independent journalist and objective poster of other people's submitted content gets you accused of being an immoral, sociopathic pervert based on blatant lies...

However, being a lawyer who sues people over downloading files from the internet and repeatedly calls them demanding up to $250,000 -

Being a lawyer who runs a known scam operation that demands money for the same types of activity, as the protege of the aforementioned lawyer -

Being an internet mob member/cultist/sock puppet -

Supporting the major porn industry and their right to strangle small business -

Supporting prostitution and sex workers -

Is all A-OK.

Please learn to think for yourselves, sock puppets... I can't tell where Randazza and White end apart from where YOU begin.

Nov. 20 2012 02:39 AM

I find it rich that the sock puppet that finds what I do offensive knowingly encourages prostitution. Obviously, your supposed 'moral argument' is out the window, 'Chris'.

https://twitter.com/ChristineLynnLV

Why don't you go tell prostitutes that they should work for free and stop stealing taxpayer dollars?

The Ken White scam is thinly veiled and readily apparent - it's the same guy - the people that have spoken to both of them via phone identified the voice as being the same voice - the scammers are the ones accusing us of wrongdoing.

Nov. 20 2012 02:33 AM

Again, more lies from the sock puppets.

The Kenneth White LISTED in GA is the same person in California. It's a scam operation using rerouted numbers.

Have you noticed that these fake accounts just happen to all be reposting the same known lies told by White and Randazza? Not a coincidence.

Sock puppets be gone.

Nov. 20 2012 02:21 AM
Chris Recouvreur from California

For someone who actually employs numerous sock puppets to promote their slimy site, you seem to be quite confused by what a sock puppet looks like. You have fake facebook accounts such as "Cassie Davidson" which is a perpetually pregnant looking woman with only 1 picture. You've used Steam handles like "Jew Oven" and "God Is White, DIE N**GERS" (my censoring not his). We've traced your IP to those accounts through steam bans for... racist behavior! You've also edited wikipedia to include the definition of "white power" as not being racist. If you want my picture just google my name and you'll find at least 10 online accounts linked to me, all highly active and much older than you're spat with Ken or Marc. This is my real name, because I am not afraid of a gutter rat like you. You're lucky you're ignorant though, because if you knew how much of a legal titan Marc was you'd have pissed yourself until dehydration.

Nov. 20 2012 12:57 AM

Craig:

Seriously? You do understand the Ken White you’re referring to here http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-678-607-2719 is in reference to what may be a scam being run out of Georgia under the name “Kenneth White & Associates”. The Ken White the rest of us who live in the real world are talking about (aka Kenneth P. White) the one who runs the Popehat blog, is a lawyer in California a whole 2175 miles away. Also and the name of his firm is NOT Kenneth White & Associates.

A simple internet search would also turn up Chris Recouvreur. Including both his picture and even his blog here http://cjrec.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/craig-brittain-does-interviews-still-lives-at-home/

As far as myself. I’m flattered you think I’m Ken or Marc, but that is not the case. Yes I post under a pseudonym but that is to keep the crazies like Cox at bay. Again a bit of internet research would have turned up at least one thing – I live in Texas. Remember now, Ken lives in a place called California and Marc lives in Las Vegas.

Geez. And you expect me to believe anything you say when you can’t even do basic internet research. No wonder you can’t find or keep a job.

Lastly, I think you mean you have the consent of the people who submit the photos, not necessarily the people who are depicted in the photos. There are people who have ended up on your site that did not consent to being posted on your site. After all, if they had consented why would they need a “takedown lawyer”?

Nov. 20 2012 12:53 AM

Thatwood B. - Once you realize that all human morality is subjective and relative, that's when they give you the sociopath label - which is really an excuse for people to hang onto morals that they don't practice themselves, because after all, a person with morals, who keeps them - would never call another human being a coward, a sociopath, or tell them to starve off and die.

In terms of legal 'guilt', there's zero.

In terms of moral guilt? There's enough to go around. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. That's exactly what that comment means - and it belongs with the biblical 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' (John 8:7).

At the end of the day? I don't feel any better or worse, as a neutral, unbiased purveyor of other people's submitted nudes, than the news reporter who covers violent crimes (murder, rape), than the repo man who takes people's things away, than the tow truck driver who cleans up a drunk driver's wreck, than anyone in society.

I don't see any of you going after the news media that posts images of violent crime, victims and criminals - on national television... somehow I think you really genuinely believe that nude pictures are worse than rape and murder, and that's scary.

We post naked, public images of live, unharmed people with their consent.

There's plenty of journalists who post images of actual victims without their consent - go chase them.

Furthermore, the laws you want to amend governing freedom of speech and freedom of the press would affect the news media as a whole. You would have to effectively re-write 230 from scratch (by either striking it from the record which is immensely difficult, or by potentially re-writing the entire Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Good luck).

Nov. 20 2012 12:40 AM

Furthermore, 'Joe' and 'Chris' (fake names, sock puppet accounts) - Just because people with an agenda told you their opinion of the truth, doesn't mean that those are facts.

Nothing that you say I've done actually happened. None of it is true. You're parroting it from questionable sources, using a fake name and profile - because undoubtedly you ARE Marc Randazza/Kenneth White using fake names and aliases to sock puppet. Pretty sad. Why not comment under your real names instead of lying to the people under fake names?

Marc Randazza and Kenneth White have scammed and extorted countless people and thus their credibility is near zero - Google for the Corbin Fisher case or look up Kenneth White on the BBB - he has an F rating and 15 pending complaints. All of the phone numbers for Kenneth White are associated with an extortion scam he's been running under the name 'Andrew Hill'.

These are people with zero credibility who are notable for being copyright trolls. If you've ever downloaded any media from the internet (that's 91% of all users) or used BitTorrent (72% of all home users in 2012), Marc Randazza is your natural enemy. If you've ever browsed free porn on the internet (81% of all adult users) he is also trying to eliminate free pornography on behalf of Manwin and Playboy.

Nov. 20 2012 12:25 AM

'Joe' and 'Chris': Yes, I moderate comments from fake sock puppet accounts that are not real people, like your sock puppet accounts.

Perhaps if you posted pictures of your face (like Facebook requires you to do for your main photo) I would allow them. However, sock puppets have no faces.

31% of real people agree with me and support what I'm doing.

Sock puppet votes and opinions do not count - I don't even know why you're bothering to write using fake sock puppet accounts

Nov. 20 2012 12:18 AM
Chris Recouvreur from California

Craig you are a coward who deletes comments contrary to your point of view from your facebook page for Is Anybody Down. You moderate and do not approve comments on your blog trolldown so that people who don't agree with you are never heard. Only cowards cannot hear the opinions of others. Larry Flint thrived when he was being openly blasted by the moral majority of the United States, because he could hold his head up proud while being lambasted by everyone. You obviously aren't that proud of what you do, because you can't stand to hear the other side. I hope it eats at you at night. I hope their faces haunt you in the dark. You are not a man, you are all teen angst with not emotional development.

Nov. 20 2012 12:13 AM
Joe Pullen

Craig:

1. Whether I think it is illegal or not is not the issue – I’m not a lawyer but I am smart enough to know that faking that you are a lawyer and taking payment for services rendered as a fake lawyer is a class 6 misdemeanor in Colorado as well as potential wire fraud. So unless YOU are a lawyer and/or can cough up a real one who can post an intelligent dissenting opinion to that fact, then I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I chose to believe real lawyers like Marc Randazza and Ken White.

2. I’ve no idea who Susie is so who knows, perhaps she/he/it is a sock puppet. Chris Recouvreur however is not, I actually know him – he is a real person. So is Scott.

3. People not posted on your site might very well up on a different site. Telling me yours is the safest and that’s a fact is not a fact just because you say it is – I refer you to your first comment back to me. If it’s a fact, provide evidence of such, otherwise it is NOT a fact.

4. I question your definition of a successful business if you have no paying advertisers and you still have to live at home with mommy and daddy. It seems to me that you’re labeling anyone who is successful and employed as a hater with an ego. That’s certainly convenient and something I’m used to seeing from those with a bad case of excusitis.

5. I don’t think I can provide you with any more fuel - you have plenty with which to burn yourself already. It seems you are vastly unaware that you’re about to engage in a spectacular flameout of epic proportions. I seriously wish you would reconsider your present course of action. I hate to see even someone like you burn themselves that badly – I’d like to think everyone can become a better person and in doing so become successful at the same time. It’s not too late to change, to take down the site, to apologize, to man up. If you did I think you’d have a ton of fans – by far more than you do now. And, you could step away from that job that you “hate” so much before it kills whats left of your soul. There’s a reason you hate what you do - think about it.

6. I read the same reviews here that you did. I don’t see 31% of people agreeing with you. I see people who wish the interview had been handled differently - that’s not agreeing with you. In fact, I see an overwhelming number of posts on other blogs, including a YouTube video, in which the vast majority seem to disagree with you. Those people know what's rigth. So do you. Do the right thing Craig.

Nov. 19 2012 11:50 PM

Chris: That's your opinion. You're entitled to it! Luckily for me, everything you said is entirely false!

Nov. 19 2012 10:40 PM
M.A.

Scott, I think I will contact Marc. At the very least, to see what kinds of legal options I have.

Nov. 19 2012 09:46 PM
Chris Recouvreur from California

Craig, maybe if you worked a honest job for 1 day in your life you'd be a better person. I know that anyone who wants to get rich without hard work or by abusing other people, will always fail. There is a reason you don't have any real advertisers on your site, you don't even know how to run a cheap image site profitably. The only money you could have made is by extorting these young women. You committed fraud by pretending to be a lawyer and a separate entity in order to bamboozle these girls out of their money. The sickest part of this all is all the craiglist ads you link to on the site are women in the W4W section. So you pretending to be a girl to get these girls pictures. You have victimized these women and you deserve whatever punishment you get. Don't worry, I hear loud mouthed white guys do great in prison!

Nov. 19 2012 09:21 PM

Joe Pullen:

1. No, Joe. Just because you think something is illegal, doesn't mean that it is. Just because you think I'm doing something illegal, doesn't mean that I am.

2. Susie, like you and 'Chris' - is a fake person. A sock puppet account. A person who doesn't exist in real life.

3. If the people weren't posted on our website, many of them would just be posted on a different website. Is Anybody Down is the safest of any of the websites in our niche. That's a fact.

4. Telling people that you have a job and they don't... sounds like ego to me. You think I don't work hard? Now, on top of running a successful business, I have to contend with an army of sock puppet trolls on the internet. My already difficult job, that I hate doing, just got even harder.

5. You're in the same boat with me, welcome to the USA, the greatest country on Earth. Is Anybody Down is 100% legal. Get used to it! It's only going to get bigger now that you've decided to provide us with more fuel...

6. Thanks again for spreading lies - all of the non-sock puppet, non-Randazza crew viewers are siding with us. 31% of the people who heard this interview actually sided with us! How does that make you feel? Your sock puppet campaign is failing. Nobody cares about those stupid lawyers, and now that they've recognized their anti-journalistic bias and tendency to lie - they're siding with us! This worked more perfectly than I could've ever imagined.

Thanks again, OTM!

- Craig Brittain

Nov. 19 2012 08:52 PM
Scott Jacobs from Illinois

M.A., if you still are looking at these, PLEASE contact Marc Randazza. He is licensed in several states, and if you live somewhere he doesn't practice law, he will do his very best to find someone who does.

Every voice of people this jerkhole has harmed needs to be heard. It needs to be documented for the courts.

Nov. 19 2012 08:27 PM
Chris Recouvreur from CA

Like all extremist or psychopaths, he claims a cause (right wing libertarian) and perverts it to his own twisted urges to validate them. Same thing happened with Hitler and the Nazi party. Luckily, he doesn't have an ounce of charisma.

Nov. 19 2012 07:44 PM
Joe Pullen

Craig – I’m going to address just a few of the more egregious comments you make below:

“1. Legal questions.I haven't done anything legally wrong. Any allegations of such are based in left-wing economics, which is designed to keep people poor - rather than in valid legal synopses. “

No Craig, the allegations of you doing things that are illegal is based on the fact you are actually doing things that are illegal. Based on a pesky little thing known as the LAW, not economics or who is sitting in the Oval office. Someone by the name of Susie provided several examples in a prior comment so I won’t repeat them again but I suggest you go re-read them.

“2. Safety and security. The public nature of our website actually lends to the safety factor. Quite a few people contact those who are pictured and politely let them know that they have been posted. This gives them a heads up - rather than their pictures circulating randomly through the internet without their knowledge. Thus, the very machine that you think is exploiting them is actually protecting them. “

I must say it is truly amazing the mental gymnastics you go through in an attempt to defend what you do. What about all the women who have been getting harassing phone calls and emails. How about the fact they wouldn’t have gotten those calls and emails or stalkers if you hadn’t posted their contact information along with their picture in the first place. It’s bad enough you post the picture but to insinuate you haven’t increased the potential danger for these people by also posting their contact information alongside their pictures is ludicrous. Their experiences after the pictures and contact information was posted PROVE otherwise.

“5. Personal judgments. I'm fairly sure there are lots of people who hate everyone and have giant egos that have jobs. You know these people and so do I.”

Yes Craig I have a job. I have a very highly paid job. I have that job because I worked my ass off putting myself through school and paying for it. I have that job because I work hard at it. I have that job because I’m nice to my superiors, my co-workers, my subordinates, my partners, and my clients. I have that job because every day I focus on how I can help my customers be even more successful. I have that job because I don’t make excuses for my failures, I learn from them. I have that job because I DON’T have an ego, because I’ve learned one of the best ways to be successful is to surround myself with people who are smarter than I am. I have that job for all the reasons you don’t have a job.

Nov. 19 2012 07:34 PM
HypocrytesAnonymous

"As a right-leaning Libertarian" - Ah, so that is what people who use the screennames 'Shoot Obama', 'Jew Oven', 'WHITE VICTORY', 'God Is White, DIE N*****S', 13 Year Old N***** Admin' call themselves these days? Funny, I could have sworn it was something else...

"I haven't done anything legally wrong. Any allegations of such are based in left-wing economics". Ah, so you advocate the legalisation of blackmail and extortion? Is that the Libertarian philosophy at work, or perhaps you are lying...

"This gives them a heads up - rather than their pictures circulating randomly through the internet without their knowledge" And when they contact you asking you to remove the pictures and contact information you mock them (complete with inaccurate legal advice to boot) and post their emails on your website for the "literate, educated" types to laugh at. The "literate, educated" types who post comments like "You should really consider buying some tits the miracle grow isn't working babe sorry" and "Damn, poor girl, her reputation / NAME is dirty for life... Her childrens children will someday see this ! Hopefully she dont go committing suicide & sh*t"...

The real question that I think we're all dying to know the answer to, is whether you genuinely believe the lies and falsehoods that you are spreading?

Nov. 19 2012 06:58 PM

4. The pictures of me, my old Myspace, etc.

As you may know, I'm 28 years old now. The picture of me with wild hair and the red shirt with the dragons on it - that was taken when I was 19 years old. The Myspace profile - that's from when I was 18-19. I've emailed them several times over the years to request the deletion of the profile to no avail. I cannot access it as it was hacked a great many years ago and now neither I nor anyone else can log into it.

5. Personal judgments.

I'm fairly sure there are lots of people who hate everyone and have giant egos that have jobs. You know these people and so do I.

6. Media at large.

The mainstream media is fueled, ratings-wise, by stories of murder, rape, violence, criminal activity and scandal. By comparison, our website is 100% objective - we post the pictures and the information as-is - we don't speculate nor degrade nor do we shame anyone who is posted - nor do we make comments on the website - we allow the users to interpret things as they would. One of the reasons our website is so popular is that we do not tell you what to believe.

Naked news is common in other countries. The USA as a whole is at least 10+ years behind Europe in terms of sexual acceptance and openness, I agree with that - I'm wholly committed to this for as long as it takes.

If anything, the old information on me, rather than being a source for scrutiny - reveals that I've committed my entire life to fighting for freedom and sexual equality for at least the past decade.

7. Randazza and Crew.

For one, he's not working pro bono. I did answer this question, but it was not aired - he has a group of backers who are paying him under the table, and they're looking for clients as fall guys to take the hit when his frivolous lawsuit (which probably won't come to fruition at this point as many people have told him his interpretation of 230 is WRONG) fails. One of these backers is James McGibney from Bullyville. Playboy/Manwin are also backing him.

This is a battle between corporations and small businesses, framed as a legal dispute. He represents the very corporations that he said that he would rather "drive a stake" for (Google the original quote) than ever sell out to... I guess they finally found the right price.

I hope you've all enjoyed the discourse so far and you can expect much more. Stay classy. Thanks again to Alex Goldman and Bob Garfield for having me on.

All the best,

- Craig Brittain

Nov. 19 2012 05:20 PM

Figured I'd chip in here.

I don't blame Bob for his rough interview style. As a right-leaning Libertarian, I expected this sort of interview and prepared for it prior to accepting it. I came in the door to play hardball and I will accept any other similar hardball interviews.

Any press is good press.

All of my comments did not make the air - that's just how media works, there's a fixed, allotted span of time that can be used for interviews.

Let's go over the questions/comments by the numbers:

1. Legal questions.

I haven't done anything legally wrong. Any allegations of such are based in left-wing economics, which is designed to keep people poor - rather than in valid legal synopses.

2. Safety and security.

The public nature of our website actually lends to the safety factor. Quite a few people contact those who are pictured and politely let them know that they have been posted. This gives them a heads up - rather than their pictures circulating randomly through the internet without their knowledge.

Thus, the very machine that you think is exploiting them is actually protecting them. The users who submit the pictures to us can (and often do) submit them to other websites as well - the appearance of those photos on our more secure website (where the average viewer is literate, educated and just looking for entertainment) versus random internet hubs (where the average viewer is vindictive and malicious) provides a soft entry. The draconian viewpoint of our site being a means to an end for people who would circulate these photos is validated in this instance.

3. Gender disparity.

This is not a case of targeting from a social angle. There are plenty of men posted on our website as well and we've always had a neutral and equal opportunity stance. You will find people of every race, gender, ethnicity, religion, background, etc. on our website. The appearance of more women is simply a supply-and-demand factor based on the fact that more internet users search for pictures of women than of men. We're not misogynists - in fact, we would wholly encourage a world where just as many people look at pictures of men as pictures of women as a pure 50/50 split - as even as you can possibly get.

Nov. 19 2012 05:19 PM
Bob from Colorado

"I'm asking you this as a man, do something else"

Thank you, Bob!

Maybe make this a recurring theme? There seem to be a countless number of worthless jobs that act as nothing but parasites on our society. If you find yourself saying, "I gotta put food on the table," during your day to day existence...you're probably a parasite. If you can't find a worthwhile job while others are working 60+ hour weeks, we probably need to re-assess how society works.

Nov. 19 2012 03:07 PM
Tali

I totally think the "starve" comment is justified. Craig stating that his choice was this or starve is total BS. He's not doing this for the money. Want proof? Go to the website (or the multiple screenshots of it posted on Popehat, Adamsteinbaugh, etc) and look for ads. The only ad there? "Who is Kataishin?" If you click on the ad, it takes you to Chance Trahan's music page. I HIGHLY doubt Chance pays himself/Craig to advertise on his own site. So where is the money that is keeping him from "starving" coming from? The only answer is the "Takedown Lawyer." Even if we give Craig the benefit of the doubt and believe that David Blade is truly a real person (and not Craig or Chance) tgey have to be getting a cut of his fee. Other than the Takedown Hammer, there is no other way the website can be making money. So when it comes down to extortion (which comes with jail time and a guarantee of never being hired) or begging on the streets "starving" (I will also point out that there is evidence that Craig lives with his parents) Begging is the more honest/upright choice.

Nov. 19 2012 12:54 PM
Amy from CT

Way to go, Bob! I thought you treated the AnyoneUp guy with journalistic neutrality that he did not deserve; but with the AnybodyDown guy, you said what needed to be said.

Nov. 19 2012 10:31 AM
Thatwood B. Telling from The Village

To the person who took Garfield to task for telling this guy it would be better to starve than to do what he's currently trying to do for a living: Garfield was right.

To abandon basic human decency in order to survive is too high a price to pay, even in theory. In practice, the choice of starving vs. doing something deeply immoral is a false one. When the guy said he couldn't get hired to do any job, what he really meant was that he couldn't get a job he would want to do. But again, even if it were literally true, what would be the point of throwing away one's life-- i.e., one's honor, decency and morality-- in an attempt to save it? You're going to die anyway. Why would you want to go to your death in such a vehicle? What would your life be worth?

Unless one's a sociopath. Then all bets are off.

Nov. 18 2012 10:32 PM
Thatwood B. Telling from The Village

Rather than feeling angry at this guy, I feel very sorry for him. Whatever happened to him to turn him so cynical must have been very awful indeed.

... Unless, of course, he was just born a sociopath.

Sadly, the world is richly populated by both types, who produce much the same results.

Nov. 18 2012 10:16 PM
ultragotha

M.A. Marc is trying to hook up victims of this site with lawyers in any state. Please contact him.

Nov. 18 2012 07:47 PM
Daniel De Kay from Sebastopol California

Thank you for offering Craig the opportunity to publicly show his true self: a real slimeball. How he can think that his actions will create "a new norm" is beyond me. Perhaps the only thing morally lower than his extortionist-like actions is his own attempt to rationalize them. What a creep. Like anything posted on social media, his words will live on to haunt him for a long time to come.

Nov. 18 2012 06:47 PM
Ronald L. Threadgill from Richmond VA WCVE

Mr. Garfield suggested that the revenge-website proprietor 'BEG' and/or 'STARVE' as opposed to continuing his online practices. Whereas the 'revenge-porn' proprietor caused me to feel a bit ill while I considered his dubious motives, Mr.Garfield's failure to distill and highlight the salient issue - EXPLOITATION - and invalidate it as such, followed by his retreat to a mode of rather archaic pejorative, was the more sickening.
I happen to agree with virtually everthing the segment intended to convey, however the final argument was very disappointing. NOBODY should be denied the basic necessities of life here in 21st century America, and the mere suggestion that ANYBODY should be denied food as an economic incentive towards 'better behavior' should be recognized as obsolete. Mr.Garfield's final words seemed desperate, petty - even with a hint of cruelty and self-righteousness, when it could have been more modern - restrained or circumspect. The thought that Mr.Garfield would prefer the proprietor be denied food due to the proprietor's perceived moral bankruptcy strikes me as rancor. I'd like to think that the revenge-porn proprietor could still be TAUGHT the harmful nature of any and all exploitation, but not be COMPELLED with the idea of actual starvation. Perhaps Mr.Garfield ran out of such reasoning by the end of this segment.

Nov. 18 2012 06:32 PM
JoeM from Sausalito,CA

Kudos to Mr. Garfield for telling this young man to "do something else...anything."
However, I think Mr. Garfield was talking to a sociopath. Where were his parents and teachers while he was developing the perspective that anything is OK and that you can seriously harm people as long as "I needed the money?" What's next, becoming a contract killer?..heck, if a guy really needs the money.

Nov. 18 2012 06:29 PM
Jason Caulk from Tampa

@ Bob Garfield - Thank you.

Thank you for having enough moral fortitude to be willing to publicly share your disgust of someone who is actively profiting from the sexual exploitation of other people.

I don't understand how people can defend this website or the activity of it's owners?

It's a sad commentary on the state of our society when exploitation of others for profit is considered acceptable.

@ On The Media - Thank you for being willing to tell this story.

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. - Winston Churchill

Nov. 18 2012 06:02 PM
Mari Mac from Boston, MA

Thank you, Bob Garfield, for saying the right thing to a sociopath.

"Craig Brittain", which is no doubt another alias for this predatory blackmailer, exhibits every verbal sign of a psychopathic well-poisoner. He's unhappy with his life so he wants to make everybody else suffer even more. Particularly females. That's what I heard, anyway.

Can you tell how much I dislike this person, sight unseen? Sure, I think most people would shun him to oblivion, too, including the attorney who usually defends pornographers. We simply won't get the opportunity to tell him what we really think of his antisocial behavior, as Bob did. Right on, Mr. Garfield!

Nov. 18 2012 03:13 PM
Elise from Baltimore, MD

He insists that there are sickos out there worse than him. Do you think he realizes that he has created a one-stop shop for those predators to choose their victim AND find out the information they need to hunt them down? Its an amazon.com for sexual predators.

Nov. 18 2012 03:12 PM
Sevans0141 from Tucson

People with morals do starve before they post naked photos of someone's daughter without their consent. To rationalize this "business concept" is really just a symptom of the entitled generation I am unfortunately part of. His parents should be embarrassed as there is nothing proprietary or beneficial to this economy, in which the owner has attributed the birth of this idea to.
Purely disgusting.

Nov. 18 2012 03:07 PM
Avi Burstein from NYC

Kudos to Bob for taking a stand on this issue. As to those taking the starving comment so seriously - give me break, no one thinks he's seriously going to starve, Bob included. Bob's just saying, do anything you can before resorting to this despicable activity. And besides, I think we all know, the excuse of "I have no other choice" is really just that, an excuse.

Nov. 18 2012 01:58 PM
Mike M from Pittsburgh, PA

Ever heard one of those news segments about the non-violent sociopaths and psychopaths among us? Ever wonder who they are? Well, meet Craig Brittain and Hunter Moore. Their singular lack of shame about what they've done is enough proof for me.

Thank you, Bob Garfield, for reminding us that the practice of journalism is not completely value-free. (Those who have been paying attention have known this all along).

Nov. 18 2012 01:19 PM
Man of Misery

Was Bob justified in his scorn? Absolutely. This guy is a scumbag and deserves to be told so in front of the world. Worse, I fail to understand that someone practicing extortion, as Susie and others point out 1. still has his website up, and 2. isn't in jail.

Nov. 18 2012 11:18 AM
Donna from New York City

Bob, I think a lot of us are grateful for this story, but I think you are doing viewers a disservice in not overtly addressing the gender disparity in these websites. They are overwhelmingly focused on nude pictures of women--because women are more subject to being judged for their sexual behavior and their bodies. Just as the earlier guest on the Petraeus story commented that he thinks there will be more legislative attention to digital privacy now that a media elite has been affected, I believe that there would less support for these guys if they were posting as many naked pictures of men.

Nov. 18 2012 11:03 AM
carolita from nyc

Isn't this story giving this awful man and his disgusting business the much sought-after publicity he wants? There's a double-edge thing going on here that I find disturbing. I'm actually more disgusted by the people submitting the photos to this guy, than the guy himself. I think they should be prosecuted for invasion of privacy. I only came to the piece at the end, and I hope that's an option.

Nov. 18 2012 11:02 AM
Daniel Skorupka

Craig Brittain has clearly done wrong.

I do understand the pro voyeur argument of the subject not being harmed by being seen nude and in many cases I agree.

This is very obviously NOT such a case.
For better or worse our society and most other societies as well do pass negative judgement on anything sexual and are guaranteed to continue to regularly do so for much more than ten years.
No matter what is said employers judge people by what they see online and it is common to deny employment based on sexual practices even if they do not effect the ability to do the job.
By intentionally looking for personal identifying information and posting it the act is made harmful because it makes the photographed subject a target for employment discrimination, sexual harassment, slut shaming and related cruelty, and in the present culture of victim blaming the subject will be judged and not receive sympathy and therefore less help from friends in gaining employment.

Because of all this they are victims and are harmed.
In these times it is especially harmful given how hard it is to find a job. Craig Brittain knows full well the pain of unemployment and therefore should know better than to endanger peoples employment.
By advertizing these sites as "revenge porn" they prove they know their actions are hurtful.

Beyond that charging people to have such pictures removed and pretending to be a lawyer are very wrong.
It is illegal, words like extortion and blackmail come to mind.
It completely removes what little was left of any "implied consent" argument. With implied consent the subject can clarify to yes or no and clarification must be easy, free and have no strings of any kind attached.
Such is not the case here, a $250 charge to remove photos makes it fail the ability to "withdraw consent at any time" standard.

If not for complicating things with nudity and arguing about free speech I believe it would be a clear cut blackmail/extortion/impersonation case and the offender would be behind bars.

P.S.
Despite what he did I must object to the way interviewer Bob Garfield talked down to Craig Brittain.
Using harsh confrontational rhetoric like telling someone to starve and panhandle is unproductive, unprofessional and worsens an already hot situation. I have been an NPR-PBS listener since childhood and know you can do better.

Nov. 18 2012 10:56 AM
Suzie

@Parabanger from Silverlake – your statement saying this guy is making an honest buck. He's NOT making an honest buck. He’s lying and he’s breaking both Federal and State laws.

Specifically:

18 U.S.C. § 2257 : US Code – Section 2257: Record keeping requirements. This is the requirement that they document the age of each of the individuals they post – it is up to them to verify age. Since they admit to copying pictures from other sites and since they the subjects of the pictures are the ones that submitted them when at least 50% of the time that was not the case, it is highly likely they did not verify age and more importantly keep records of the fact they did so.

Extortion – there is evidence that Craig posed as someone else on Craigslist and solicited pictures of others under false pretenses. These pictures were then posted on the site and when the victims protested they were directed to the fake David Blade (aka Takedown Hammer). Since Craig and potentially Chance solicited the pictures and edited/posted that content themselves and then asked for payment to remove it = extortion.

1. C.R.S. 18—5-113 Impersonating an attorney and accepting fees as a fake attorney. Class six felony in Colorado. Which leads to the next Federal offense.
2.
3. Wire fraud. Victims have come forward with proof they have paid said fake attorney David Blade for taking down the pictures.
4.
Libel and HIPAA violations. There is a tab on the site labeled as Herps confirmed – insinuating that the individuals depicted have herpes. Does anyone seriously believe that those individuals both submitted their own pictures to this site AND admitted they have herpes? Really? What did Craig and Chance do to verify these individuals have herpes? That’s right – nothing. They accepted the word of some jealous ex or nasty ex friend. That’s libel. If the person actually has herpes then they have violated the disclosure component of HIPAA regarding keeping medical information private without the written release of the patient/individual.

Nov. 18 2012 08:36 AM
Parabanger from Silverlake

I think bob Garfield went overboard in his disdain for a guy trying to make an honest buck. Isanybodydown's victims/subjects are a bunch of whiners who cant keep up with the changing standards of privacy they themselves are creating.

Nov. 18 2012 05:09 AM
S Mars

When I heard Craig Brittain rattle off some of the things he (supposedly) did before starting this website I remember thinking that I did some of the same things, both labor and service, with the hopes of one day joining the ranks of the creative workforce. Fortunately I can say that I have limits and scruples. That's me. What Mr. Brittain and his partner has done is despicable, no doubt. But it didn't rise to level of indignation Mr. Garfield had heaved on this copycat duo. At the beginning of the interview I was rooting for some Internet vigilantism, some Cyber justice. With Mr. Garfield's comment that the pair should "starve" versus create and maintain this website I shifted uneasily to a "meh" position. He would've done better if he left the righteous commentary just run in his head and politely wrap up the interview. Strangely, that's what I expected from On The Media. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Nov. 18 2012 03:08 AM
Zach

I, for one, appreciated Garfield's "starve" comment, in part because it was Brittain himself who brought it up. Does anyone actually believe that this creep was actually ever at the risk of starvation? Or, if he was, that he would reveal that fact on the air? Of course, I can't know for sure, but the way he shifted his defense from "it's all about a progressive cause" to "it was the website or starvation" should make one highly dubious. I will say that the greater and more pressing issue is how we have created a society that produces people like Mark Brittain, his pathetic but not entirely inaccurate excuse of "make money or die", and his utterly reprehensible website.

Nov. 18 2012 12:36 AM

I was a little disgusted by the conduct of Mr. Garfield during the interview. Craig Brittain is a scumbag, but there are lots of scumbags in the world. I don't listen to NPR to hear interviewers attack scumbag guests. His comments towards the end, especially, were unnecessary and pursued a line of discussion that didn't really add anything insightful.

Nov. 17 2012 11:01 PM
Alex from chicago

I admit I don't mind nudity. I don't mind sex. I think it is much better than running around killing people. Even in movies, you see so many acts of murder, yet people don't really complain about it. Then you see "accidental" display of boobs on TV, and the country goes crazy. That is, in my opinion, sick.
This "Is Anybody Down" website though, is pathetic. I just wonder where exactly is the line between a right to privacy and a freedom of speech.

Nov. 17 2012 09:47 PM
Suzie

Craig is lying. Multiple lawyers have talked to people who were posted to this site who did not send in the pictures and did not consent. Additionally, there are mutiple emails from people who have written to him stating they are not the ones that sent the pictures in and they did not consent.

Both Craig and Chance have threatened anyone who tries to expose them or make fun of them. They have posted these threats publicly to the Popehat blog, Adam Steinbaugh's blog, a YouTube video by Captain Obvious, and potentially even to an article written by TechDirt.

On his old MySpace page Craig states he is a porn actor and wants to get it on with girls in movies. He has admitted publicly in writing that he hates people. The reason he can't find work is simple - no one wants to hire a failed porn star who brags about the size of his shlong and lies and who hates everyone. It's very simple - Craig is one of those losers who will blame his lot in life on everyone else except himself.

Nov. 17 2012 09:16 PM
M.A.

Scott, I looked at Marc's blog post where he said that he would represent people pro bono and it only applies to people who live in the Las Vegas area. I don't live anywhere near it.

And I did think about legal action, but I'm afraid that it will bring more attention to me than I really want.

I did, however, contact Marc with additional information that I think might be useful about this whole case. I don't know if he can use it or not, but I did what I thought might be beneficial, not just to me, but to everyone else on that awful website.

Nov. 17 2012 07:22 PM
Scott Jacobs from Illinois

M.A., I strongly suggest that you contact Marc. He will happily represent you himself, or find you someone who will.

Nov. 17 2012 06:52 PM
M.A.

I was a victim of this site and I can guarantee that I DID NOT consent to my photos up on that blasted site. I AM upset about my photos being on there because I never wanted my privacy to be violated like that. I had to change my phone number because I got phone calls from creepers. The fact that my hometown is up there endangers my safety by making it easier for people to stalk me at home, at work, everywhere else. I hope this website is shuttered down.

Nov. 17 2012 06:40 PM

One comment removed - please refrain from threats/advocation of violence toward people who are guests on the show.

Thanks,
Alex Goldman
Producer, On the Media

Nov. 17 2012 05:59 PM
Lee

Three cheers for Bob Garfield taking this scum to task!

Nov. 17 2012 04:46 PM
Joe

I was shocked to hear the interviewer ask the owner of the site to STARVE HIMSELF. Is posting naked pictures online really worse than asking someone to KILL THEMSELVES? I agree that the site is in poor taste, but the interviewer's conduct was not only critical -- it was disgraceful. As much as I hate to say it, I think the site's owner deserves an apology.

Nov. 17 2012 02:09 PM
Brenda from New York City

I appreciated the directness of Mr. Garfield during the interview. It's unusual to hear a guest criticized on the air. Yet I found it a bit disingenuous to denigrate a product while actively selling it to the listening public. Choosing to have these guests and mention their website is to actively engage in endorsing their product.
www.HereSheIsBoys.com

Nov. 17 2012 08:17 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.