What can I do if someone posts nude pictures of me on the Internet? I live in Michigan and my ex girlfriend lives in Indiana. She took a picture of me fully nude and we broke up. I guess someone got her phone and now they are posting nude pictures of me to people I know. It's really weird to explain it to everyone I know, but also really frustrating to have this going on. I did not give anyone permission to do this. They have also said they're gonna kill me. What action can I take?
The situation described could lead to a suit for "Intrusion of solitude" or "invasion of seclusion" one of the torts classed under "Invasion of privacy" The state of Michigan recognizes this tort, and in Tobin v. Mich. Civil Serv. Comm‘n, 331 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Mich. 1982). the Michigan Supreme court said that the elements of this tort are: (1) the existence of a secret and private subject matter; (2) a right possessed by plaintiff to keep that subject matter private; and (3) the obtaining of information about that subject matter by defendant through some method objectionable to the reasonable man. Some later decisions omit the 3rd element. In Harkey v. Abate, 346 N.W.2d 74 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) plaintiff proved the existence of a hidden viewing panel in a restroom, but not that anyone had actually observed her, and still won a judgment, the court writing that: [i]n our opinion, the installation of the hidden viewing devices alone constitutes an interference with that privacy which a reasonable person would find highly offensive.. Such suits are permitted by MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 750.539d. See Fordham Law Review (Vol 83, Issue 6) "No Harm, No Foul? 'Attempted' Invasion of Privacy and the Tort of Intrusion Upon Seclusion" See also "Divorce Wars and invasion of Privacy" for a discussion of related issues. A Book on Liability of traspportation Entity for Release of Secure Data notes that Michigan has "long recognized" this tort, quoting Dalley v Dykema Gossett (287 Mich App 269), and quotes Lewis vs LeGrow (258 Mich app 175 that: It is clear that [the right of privacy] includes keeping sexual relations private. The described conduct could also lead to a charge of harassment, which can be either criminal or a civil matter. According to Cyber Civil Rights Michigan makes "revenge porn" a misdemeanor under Sec 145e, added to 1931 PA 328, by SB 508 (2016) which says in part> Sec. 145e. (1) A person shall not intentionally and with the intent to threaten, coerce, or intimidate disseminate any sexually explicit visual material of another person if all of the following conditions apply: (a) The other person is not less than 18 years of age. (b) The other person is identifiable from the sexually explicit visual material itself or information displayed in connection with the sexually explicit visual material. This subdivision does not apply if the identifying information is supplied by a person other than the disseminator. (c) The person obtains the sexually explicit visual material of the other person under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the sexually explicit visual material was to remain private. (d) The person knows or reasonably should know that the other person did not consent to the dissemination of the sexually explicit visual material. Indiana apparently does not have a similar law as yet. One might report this to the police under this Michigan law, or file a civil suit under an invasion of privacy or harassment theory. It would probably be well to consult a lawyer who knows these laws, who can advise on the releative merits of these different courses of actions. Be aware that filing a lawsuit will make the subject of that suit "newsworthy" and permit others to publicize the matter without penalty, and there is a risk of the Streisand effect coming into play.
Would any offence be committed for: Having this on your person? Buying or selling this? Leaving it around for people to plug in to a computer? In the abstract, I don't think that this conduct would violate either Section 36 of the U.K. law or U.S. law, although, obviously, purposefully destroying a computer itself (i.e. actually using the device without the consent of the owner of the computer) would violate many U.K. laws and would also violate many U.S. laws at both the state and federal level. I also don't think that possession or buying or selling this product would be a crime absent some intent that it be used illegally, in which case there might be an "attempt" to commit a crime offense, or an offense that would make one part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. In the "leaving it around" example, there is arguably an intent to use it to harm another improperly, although the phrasing is ambivalent. While many statutes in the U.S. criminalize possession of burglary tools, or drug paraphernalia, sometimes with an associated intent element (although even these crimes often have an express or judicially implied intent to use element), I'm not aware of any statute that criminalize possession of tools for malicious destruction of property. So, if the tools aren't possessed or used in a manner intended as a step in the facilitation of a crime, I don't think that any law is violated. So far as I know, the U.S. does not have a counterpart to Section 37 of the British statute cited above (it isn't a terribly easy thing to search for to definitively rule out the existence of such a law because federal law has many uncodified crimes in unexpected statutes and there are many sets of state criminal statutes, not all of which are codified either). The example giving in the comments by @gnasher729 of possession of a hammer which could be used to do the same things that this object could be used to do is instructive. Arguably, this USB-like tool is more specifically targeted at malicious conduct. But, for example, when I used to work as a radio news reporter, we had a machine that was basically a high powered magnet that was specifically designed to destroy all information on magnetic media. This was, in part, so that it could be reused, but it was also so that confidential interviews wouldn't fall into the wrong hands once they were no longer needed, in much the way that one might shred paper documents. It isn't so implausible to think that a device like this one might be necessary for individuals or firms with national defense secrets embedded in their hardware and software to have on hand in order to destroy a sensitive computer in order to prevent a security breach, if necessary. In a case like that, leaving one of these devices around the office unlabeled might be negligent, but wouldn't have the intent necessary to be an intended crime. And, it is hard to imagine that the device itself, which seems pretty simple, would itself involve any technology that is a national security secret, so it probably wouldn't violate export control laws. Of course, possession, purchase or sale of such a specialized device, or leaving it around unlabeled would certainly be powerful evidence of an intent to use the device in a wrongful manner, and hence, of an attempt to commit a crime. Indeed, possession of such a device or purchase of one might very well be sufficient to establish probable cause to seize the device and arrest the person holding it on charges of an attempt to destroy a computer. But, this device would be merely powerful evidence of an intent to commit a crime, rather than something that is a crime to commit in and of itself. There are no international laws that govern this kind of thing. The only international laws applicable to individuals pertain to war crimes and nuclear and chemical weapons. Even then, most international laws direct member nations to adopt domestic laws on the subject rather than being self-executing.
Is blocking certain people while allowing everybody else to view some content discrimination Yes. and violate anti-discrimination laws Probably not, at least in the US. There is no federal law prohibiting "discrimination" in general. There are specific laws regarding discrimination against certain groups in certain contexts. They would probably not apply to an individual determining who is allowed to view their social media posts. That said, there are some specific contexts where this might be illegal. They would generally involve non-personal use of the account. The courts recently ruled that Donald Trump may not block people on his Twitter account, because he's using it in an official presidential capacity rather than just his individual capacity. Also, racial discrimination in housing is illegal, so if you're selling your house and you block all black people from viewing your house photos, that would probably be illegal as well. Also is not being able to consume information available on a public platform a violation against right to freedom. I'm not sure what you think a "right to freedom" would entail. But I don't think you have the right to demand that a person allow you to access their social media accounts.
You can basically take pictures of anything from your property if it is "public" (i.e. easily visible from your property). People on the road are in public, and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The basic restrictions on photography are (1) you cannot trespass (you aren't), and (2) you cannot take pictures of certain government operations (e.g. airport border crossing – certain aspects of government prohibition may require lawsuit to rein in government policy that is at odds with the 1st Amendment; also secret military installations, for which there is specific law, 18 USC 795). Commercial exploitation of people who you photograph is strongly protected in California, and that is it.
You have misread the DMLP page. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to record a conversation if you are a party and if the other party does not consent. The fact that federal law doesn't ban something doesn't mean that states can't ban it. There is generally a presumption that when both the feds and the states can legitimately regulate something, the feds weren't trying to preempt all state laws on the topic. While people often say "federal law takes precedence over state law," the normal rule is that both laws apply; the federal law only blocks the state law if the feds wanted to block said state laws. So far as I can tell, the federal law has never been held to preempt two-party consent laws; the point of the federal law was to restrict recording, not extend it. It's like how federal law doesn't prohibit taking hostages inside the US to coerce a private company into doing what you want (anti-terrorism laws might, I guess, but the federal hostage-taking law doesn't); while the federal law excludes most hostage-taking in the US, that doesn't mean that it's legal to take hostages. Congress sometimes wants to establish nationwide standards for something, but the presumption is that they didn't.
I am not a lawyer either, though I have been through Pennsylvania a few times. The relevant law is 18 Pa.C.S. 5703, which prohibits recording without consent of all parties (Penna is a "two-party consent" state, like Florida and Washington). Unfortunately, violation of that law is a third degree felony, which has a maximum of 7 year prison. A specific instance of someone getting in trouble for recording their boss is Commonwealth v. Smith (Smith used a cell phone to record his boss, then argued that a cell phone isn't a "device"; the court determined that it is, and that was Feb 16 2016 so who knows the final outcome). An attorney in Pennsylvania might be able to tell you how often people actually serve time for violating the law. You should call one.
Let's put to bed the myth of privacy that is at the heart of your question: in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204 Justice Dowd said “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed" So they can ask you to stop; its bad manners if you don't but it is not illegal. If they are the controller of the property then they can stop you filming from their property but they cannot stop you filming into their property from outside (either public land or land where you do have permission). See How do laws affect photography of non-humans in public when people may be in the frame?
Facebook's local jurisdiction is the US. In the US, making false statements isn't generally illegal or tortious, as they are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. So, Facebook isn't under any legal pressure to remove posts that are posting false information. It sounds like you've already asked them to remove the posts and they refused, so at this point you do not seem to have any procedural recourse with Facebook. It's possible your country or the country the person is posting from lacks free speech protections and would either prosecute or allow suits against someone posting false information, if that's the case you could try to get the local equivalent of a prosecutor to prosecute them. I realize that is unlikely to happen, the reality is that coordinated fake news on the Internet is still something that platforms are figuring out how to deal with fairly.