No Thank You, Mr. Pecker • Hacker News Board

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#81

Post by mejari » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:35 AM UTC

defen wrote: post #66

> If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie, they say they’ll publish the photos, and quickly. And there’s an associated threat: They’ll keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if we ever deviate from that lie. They never explicitly say that, do they? I'm not enough of a lawyer to know if what they did still counts as extortion/blackmail, but as far as I can see they simply descri…

From the quoted e-mail:

>In the case of a breach of the agreement by one or more of the Bezos Parties, AM is released from its obligations under the agreement, and may publish the Unpublished Materials.

That's very directly saying that they will publish the photos if Bezos doesn't do what they say.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#82

Post by thinkling » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:36 AM UTC

defen wrote: post #66

> If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie, they say they’ll publish the photos, and quickly. And there’s an associated threat: They’ll keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if we ever deviate from that lie. They never explicitly say that, do they? I'm not enough of a lawyer to know if what they did still counts as extortion/blackmail, but as far as I can see they simply descri…

> "6. In the case of a breach of the agreement by one or more of the Bezos Parties, AM is released from its obligations under the agreement, and may publish the Unpublished Materials."

They don't really need to say more than that, do they?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#83

Post by rococode » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:36 AM UTC

emilsedgh wrote: post #48

redthrowaway wrote: post #36

Now this is Fuck You Money.

Well in this case there's no money involved really. It's just a fuck you.

The "I asked him to prioritize protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter" part gives off pretty strong "money is no object" vibes haha.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#84

Post by Jach » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:37 AM UTC

longerthoughts wrote: post #41

minimaxir wrote: post #18

Granted, this strategy is very high risk unless you're one of the richest people in the world.

But what person without means is going to be the target of tabloid blackmailing?

Anyone with a job has means, more agencies just need to start thinking of it as a pipeline business. You can even go as low as to threaten to dox various meme authors for instance, unless they start paying $10/mo into a fund. Get enough of them over enough time and the methods used to de-anonymize or uncover whatever other information you want to charge people for the privilege of not releasing will pay for themselves.

/s

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#85

Post by AndrewKemendo » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:38 AM UTC

If you ever find yourself with scandalous or incriminating material on someone remember this: Blackmail will always fail in the long run.

It's commonnly known in espionage tradecraft that it's an absolute last resort or totally off limits tool. The risk you take with coercive trade craft are insanely high.

As proven here.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#86

Post by mejari » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:38 AM UTC

romanovtexas wrote: post #21

Slightly off topic, but the fact that the world's richest man who owns a tech giant chose to publish this on a closed platform like Medium should be worrisome for the future of the open web. On the other hand, this might just be the biggest brand endorsement for Medium till date.

Only HN could turn Jeff Bezos publicly outing a company attempting to extort him with naked photos into a threat to the "future of the open web".

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#87

Post by jlmorton » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:41 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #72

api wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is worse than Gawker outing Thiel as gay. In this case they're attempting blackmail ahead of time, which may be a crime.

It’s generally not blackmail to threaten someone with some action that, by itself, is legal. See, for example, the many civil settlements where rich people stop the people they raped from going to the police. And I’m unsure what the status is on publishing salacious private photos. Sure, there is a copyright issue. But that’s a civil matter, not criminal. If it were a crime, it really wouldn’t be much of a threat bec…

That's not true at all.

> Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging information about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless money is paid to purchase silence. It is a form of extortion. Because the information is usually substantially true, it is not revealing the information that is criminal, but demanding money to withhold it.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/blackmail/

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#88

Post by basil-rash » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:42 AM UTC

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know why this is so low on HN? It has more votes and is more recent than anything except the "How I didn't make a billion dollar company" post, but is at rank 11.

https://imgur.com/a/bifDABu

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#89

Post by Aeolun » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:42 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #72

api wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is worse than Gawker outing Thiel as gay. In this case they're attempting blackmail ahead of time, which may be a crime.

It’s generally not blackmail to threaten someone with some action that, by itself, is legal. See, for example, the many civil settlements where rich people stop the people they raped from going to the police. And I’m unsure what the status is on publishing salacious private photos. Sure, there is a copyright issue. But that’s a civil matter, not criminal. If it were a crime, it really wouldn’t be much of a threat bec…

I think the operative word in blackmail is threaten. Not so much what you happen to be threatening with.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#90

Post by unreal37 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 12:44 AM UTC

mdanger007 wrote: post #69

ginger123 wrote: post #51

How can they publish photos which they don't own the copyrights?

the paparazzi exist in a 1st amendment gray area. they cover public figures but the newsworthy nature of their salacious stories and gathering tactics are always getting challenged in court.

The paparazzi own their photographs though. In copyright, the person who takes the photo owns it.

These photos were stolen.