IsAnybodyDown Part IV: More Evidence the People Pictured were Deceived — and Didn’t Consent

In earlier posts, I documented some evidence that the proprietors of involuntary-porn site were culling their photos from unsuspecting Craigslist posters and discounted their nonsensical claims that everyone who appears on the site consented to be pictured there.  This post is largely a re-hash of that evidence — with some fun new discoveries.

Craig’s List: are the photos on culled from unsuspecting Craigslist posters?

It appears that Craig, Chance, or one really enthusiastic fan is gathering a large majority of’s content by emailing posters in the Craigslist personals section, pretending to be a potential hook-up while gathering pictures and personal information.  While certainly not all of the pictures on the site are gathered this way, many — perhaps most — are.

Here’s how we know it’s likely Craig, Chance, or a single enthusiastic fan are culling their content from unsuspecting Craigslist posters:

IsAnybodyDown declined to comment — to put it charitably — on whether its administrators deceive Craigslist users into sending their photos.

It’s consent if she doesn’t say no, right?

It’s clear that almost nobody on wants to be pictured there.  If those pictured there consented to it, why would Craig and Chance concoct a fake lawyer to deceive people into sending money to get their own pictures removed?

If the persons appearing on the site consented to the use of their pictures, why do its operators brag about being untouchable by U.S. copyright law because they’re hosted overseas, and note that “people will go to amazing lengths […] to get their pictures and information removed”?  This is the same law that Craig Brittain is now attempting to use to silence criticism of him on Popehat.  I can only surmise that IsAnybodyDown ignored the complaints of the three people who were forced to use DMCA complaints to Google to have their photos removed from search results. [PDF examples one, two, three — the latter involving a couple.]

Update: an eagle-eyed reader points out that it’s more than just four people who had to go to Google with DMCA complaints: it’s at least twelve.

Then there are the complaints on the site itself — and these are the ones who were brave enough to say anything at all:

Those photos are all still on the site.

If the complaints on the site weren’t enough to demonstrate Craig Brittain and Chance Trahon’s awareness that the people pictured there really don’t want to be pictured there, the emails they received and then freely shared as a boastful warning to others are damning:

All of these emails were deleted shortly after I began posting about them.

Additionally, the site’s brilliant proprietors sought to further their exposure by getting into the Bill Cunningham show (and getting a free trip to New York City in the process), asking users: “Were you posted on this site? Don’t want to be posted? State your case on TV!”

Finally, there’s this very helpful (and now deleted) advice about what to do if you got posted: change your Facebook settings so that nobody can contact you ever, change your phone number, and talk to Craig and Chance if you feel lonely.  It goes on to suggest that you not make legal threats and don’t contact law enforcement because you could go to jail for lying to them.  Again, why would this advice be necessary if people consented to this?

Craig and Chance justify this to themselves by resorting to their own self-serving view of ‘consent.’  In their view, anyone who sends nude photos to anyone else consents, because sending the photos to anyone via “a public channel” is “written consent by legal definition.”  This almost-argument conflates consent with assuming risk.  Yes, there is a risk that someone will share the photos with someone else, but that risk is not the same as consent to the person doing so.  The risk that someone is an asshat-for-profit is not consent to asshattery.  This blame-the-victim justification ignores both copyright law and common sense: sharing something privately with a small group of people is not a license to share it with the rest of the world, let alone do so for the express purpose of making money.

Chance Trahon resorts to an even weirder justification: according to Chance, the site somehow outs guys who try to set their wives up for rape and murder via Craigslist.  I’m unclear, exactly, as to when has ever done this — or how posting the names, hometowns, and phone numbers of the women deters that terrifying possibility. [Images of Chance’s tweets courtesy of Satirical Takedown Lawyer.]

Update: or maybe this entire thing is for profit (“and business is good”) and to establish a legal world where employers can’t fire you for your online reputation. At this point, that’s probably the best outcome Craig and Chance can hope for — unfortunately for them, it won’t come true. [Taken from a now-deleted complaint email.]

Finally, one question: Craig notes (correctly, I’ve unfortunately discovered) that he, himself, has had his own nude photos plastered on the internet.  If Craig ‘consented’, why don’t his own nude photos appear on his own site? Why doesn’t Chance summon up the courage to do to himself what he does to others?

Because they don’t want to — just like the people whose pictures were usurped don’t want to.