Bankrupt crypto exchange FTX is looking to claw back luxury property and "millions of dollars in fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds" from the parents of Sam Bankman-Fried, the exchange's disgraced ex-CEO and founder. CNBC reports: In a Monday court filing, lawyers representing the bankruptcy estate of the failed exchange alleged that Allan Joseph Bankman and his wife, Barbara Fried, "exploited their access and influence within the FTX enterprise to enrich themselves, directly and indirectly, by millions of dollars." The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, goes on to claim that "despite knowing or blatantly ignoring that the FTX Group was insolvent or on the brink of insolvency," Bankman and Fried discussed with their son the transfer of a $10 million cash gift and a $16.4 million luxury property in The Bahamas.

The suit alleges that as early as 2019, Sam's father also directly participated in efforts to cover up a whistleblower complaint which threatened to "expose the FTX Group as a house of cards." The filing also details emails written by Bankman in which he complained to the FTX US Head of Administration that his annual salary was $200,000, when he was "supposed to be getting $1M/yr." That grievance was ultimately elevated to his son in an email, according to the lawsuit: "Gee, Sam I don't know what to say here. This is the first [I] have heard of the 200K a year salary! Putting Barbara on this."

The filing characterizes the correspondence as Bankman lobbying his son to "massively increase his own salary." Within two weeks, the suit claims that Bankman-Fried had collectively gifted his parents $10 million in funds coming from Alameda, and within three months, the couple was deeded the $16.4 million property in The Bahamas. According to the partially-redacted filing, Bankman-Fried's parents also "pushed for tens of millions of dollars in political and charitable contributions, including to Stanford University, which were seemingly designed to boost Bankman's and Fried's professional and social status." Fried is also accused of encouraging her son and others within the company to avoid, if not violate, federal campaign finance disclosure rules by "engaging in straw donations or otherwise concealing the FTX Group as the source of the contributions."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Justice Department on Monday objected to removing the public from the court during some discussions of how Google prices online advertising, one of the issues at the heart of the antitrust trial under way in Washington. The government is seeking to show that Alphabet's Google broke antitrust law to maintain its dominance in online search. The search dominance led to fast-increasing advertising revenues that made Google a $1 trillion company. [Throughout the trial, Google's defense is that its high market share reflects the quality of its product rather than any illegal actions to build monopolies in some aspects of its business.]

David Dahlquist, speaking for the government, pointed to a document that was redacted that had a short back and forth about Google's pricing for search advertising. Dahlquist then argued to Judge Amit Mehta, who will decide the case, that information like the tidbit in the document should not be redacted. "This satisfies public interest because it's at the core of the DOJ case against Google," he said. Speaking for Google, John Schmidtlein urged that all discussions of pricing be in a closed session, which means the public and reporters must leave the courtroom. [...]

Case in point was testimony given early Monday by a Verizon executive, Brian Higgins, about the company's decision to always pre-install Google's Chrome browser with Google search on its mobile phones. After about 30 minutes of testimony, Higgins' testimony was closed for the next two hours. It's possible that he was asked about Google's payments to Verizon but the public will never know. Those payments -- which the government said are $10 billion annually to mobile carriers and others -- helped the California-based tech giant win powerful default positions on smartphones and elsewhere.

A federal judge has granted a request to block the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), a law that requires special data safeguards for underage users online. The Verge reports: In a ruling (PDF) issued today, Judge Beth Freeman granted a preliminary injunction for tech industry group NetChoice, saying the law likely violates the First Amendment. It's the latest of several state-level internet regulations to be blocked while a lawsuit against them proceeds, including some that are likely bound for the Supreme Court. The CAADCA is meant to expand on existing laws -- like the federal COPPA framework -- that govern how sites can collect data from children. But Judge Freeman objected to several of its provisions, saying they would unlawfully target legal speech. "Although the stated purpose of the Act -- protecting children when they are online -- clearly is important, NetChoice has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the provisions of the CAADCA intended to achieve that purpose do not pass constitutional muster," wrote Freeman.

Freeman cites arguments made by legal writer Eric Goldman, who argued that the law would force sites to erect barriers for children and adults alike. Among other things, the ruling takes issue with the requirement that sites estimate visitors' ages to detect underage users. The provision is ostensibly meant to cut down on the amount of data collected about young users, but Freeman notes that it could involve invasive technology like face scans or analyzing biometric information -- ironically requiring users to provide more personal information.

The law offers sites an alternative of making data collection for all users follow the standards for minors, but Freeman found that this would also chill legal speech since part of the law's goal is to avoid targeted advertising that would show objectionable content to children. "Data and privacy protections intended to shield children from harmful content, if applied to adults, will also shield adults from that same content," Freeman concluded.

A group of publishers in the U.S. have filed a lawsuit against the "notorious" online database Library Genesis (Libgen), a website known for providing free access to scientific papers and books. The lawsuit accuses Libgen of facilitating the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted academic materials. The Register reports: The suit, filed in a New York federal court [PDF], asks for a legal order "requiring the transfer of the Libgen domain names to plaintiffs or, at plaintiffs' election, canceling or deleting the Libgen domain names," with the idea of frustrating visitors -- mostly students -- believed to number in their millions. The filing said that according to similarweb.com, the sites collectively were visited by 9 million people from the U.S. each month from March to May 2023. The suit alleges that several of the Libgen websites solicit "donations" from users. "These solicitations are in English and seek payments only in Bitcoin or [Monero]." It adds: "one Libgen Site reports that it has raised $182,540 from donations since January 1, 2023."

The publishers also claim the people who run LibGen -- named in the suit as Does 1-50 and whom it says "are believed to reside outside of the United States at unknown foreign locations" -- derive "revenue from interstate or international commerce, including through advertisements." It goes on to add: "Defendants compete directly with Plaintiffs by distributing infringing copies of their works for free, displacing legitimate sales. When a consumer obtains Plaintiffs' works from the Libgen Sites instead of through legitimate channels, no remuneration is provided to Plaintiffs or their authors for the substantial investments they have made to create and publish the works."

The textbook publishers claim that "through social media and from their peers, students are bombarded with messages to use the Libgen Sites instead of paying for legal copies of textbooks" -- thus depriving the publishers and the authors they represent of their income. The suit also asks for damages without detailing an amount, although it asks for "an accounting and disgorgement of Defendants' profits, gains, and advantages realized from their unlawful conduct." The complaint claims the ads are in English and for various "U.S. products, such as browser extensions and online games". The suit adds that some "also appear to be phishing attempts, which can result in users downloading a virus or other malicious program onto their computers."

The lawsuit also calls out Google and "other intermediaries," U.S. companies it claims help LibGen "conduct their unlawful operations" -- "NameCheap for domain registration services, Cloudflare for proxy services, and Google for search engine services." It goes on to include a screenshot of Google's "knowledge panel," which it says "describes Libgen as a site [that] enables free access to content that is otherwise paywalled or not digitized elsewhere."

From an EFF announcement this week: Technical standards like fire and electrical codes developed by private organizations but incorporated into public law can be freely disseminated without any liability for copyright infringement, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The judge ruled that posting the materials constituted fair use — so the nonprofit group doing the posting won't be liable for copyright infringement. The American Bar Association Journal reports: The decision is a victory for public-domain advocate Carl Malamud and the group that he founded, Public.Resource.org. The group posts legal materials on its websites, including the standards developed by the three organizations that sued... "It has been over 10 years since plaintiffs filed suit in this case," said Malamud in a press release by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "The U.S. Court of Appeals has found decisively in favor of the proposition that citizens must not be relegated to economy-class access to the law."
In 2012 Carl Malamud answered questions from Slashdot readers.

And now, finally, from the EFF's announcement: Tuesday's ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholds the idea that our laws belong to all of us, and we should be able to find, read, and share them free of registration requirements, fees, and other roadblocks... "In a nation governed by the rule of law, private parties have no business controlling who can read, share, and speak the rules to which we are all subject," EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry said. "We are pleased that the Court of Appeals upheld what other U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have said for almost 200 years: No one should control access to the law."
Or, as the EFF puts it on another page, "Copyright cannot trump the essential public interest..."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Google agreed to pay $155 million to settle claims by California and private plaintiffs that the search engine company misled consumers about how it tracks their locations, and used their data without consent. Both settlements resolve claims that the Alphabet unit deceived people into believing they maintained control over how Google collected and used their personal data. The company was accused of being able to "profile" people and target them with advertising even if they turned off their "Location History" setting, and deceive people about their ability to block ads they did not want.

The California settlement requires Google to pay $93 million, and disclose more about how it tracks people's whereabouts and uses data it collects. Money from Google's $62 million settlement with private plaintiffs would, after deducting legal fees, go to court-approved nonprofit groups that track internet privacy concerns. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said this made sense because it was "infeasible" to distribute money to the approximately 247.7 million U.S. adults with mobile devices. "Google was telling its users one thing--that it would no longer track their location once they opted out--but doing the opposite and continuing to track its users' movements for its own commercial gain," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. "That's unacceptable."

California, the home to many of tech's biggest companies and the nation's most populous state, is pushing ahead with a right-to-repair bill for consumer electronics and appliances. From a report: After unanimous votes in the state Assembly and Senate, the bill passed yesterday is expected to move through a concurrence vote and be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. "Since Right to Repair can pass here, expect it to be on its way to a backyard near you," said iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens in a statement. iFixit, a seller of repair parts and tools and advocate for right-to-repair laws, based in San Luis Obispo, California, was joined in its support for the California repair law by another California company with a history of opposing repair laws: Apple. The consumer tech giant's letter urging passage of the bill was surprising, to say the least, though Apple said that the bill's stipulations for "individual users' safety" and "product manufacturers' intellectual property" were satisfactory.

California's bill goes further than right-to-repair laws in other states. Rather than limiting its demand that companies provide parts, tools, repair manuals, and necessary software for devices that are still actively sold, California requires that vendors provide those items for products sold after July 1, 2021, starting in July 2024. Products costing $50 to $99.99 must be accompanied by those items for three years, and items $100 and more necessitate seven years. The bill also provides for stronger enforcement mechanisms, allowing for municipalities to bring superior court cases rather than contact the state attorney general.

The Justice Department will press its argument Thursday that Google sought to strike agreements with mobile carriers to win powerful default positions on smartphones to dominate search in an antitrust trial that could change the future of the internet. From a report: The government will wrap up questioning Thursday of Antonio Rangel, who teaches behavioral biology at the California Institute of Technology. Other witnesses will be James Kolotouros, for Google, and Brian Higgins, from Verizon Communications. The government says the Alphabet unit paid $10 billion annually to wireless companies like AT&T, device makers like Apple and browser makers like Mozilla to fend off rivals and keep its search engine market share near 90%. The government has also alleged that Google illegally took steps to protect communications about the payments.

The government called witnesses on Tuesday and Wednesday to show that Google, as far back as the mid-2000s, sought to attract a large number of search queries by winning default status on mobile devices. Another witness, Rangel, discussed how powerful default status was, although data he used to show this was largely redacted. Google's clout in search, the government alleges, has helped Google build monopolies in some aspects of online search advertising. Search is free so Google makes money through advertising.

"AFRINIC, the regional internet registry for the African continent and Indian Ocean region, has been placed under receivership following an injunction obtained against it in the Supreme Court of Mauritius," writes Slashdot reader Kelerei. "This appears to be a result of poor governance at AFRINIC, and in part a consequence of an IP address assignment debacle in 2021." MyBroadband reports: Industry players on both sides of a conflict involving the registry have welcomed the Mauritian Supreme Court's latest ruling, as it potentially creates a path to reconstitute the ailing entity's board and appoint a CEO. Headquartered in Mauritius, AFRINIC found itself on the wrong side of the country's corporate governance laws after repeatedly ignoring warnings from its members and community about the danger. It also disregarded judgments on some occasions, with the courts warning AFRINIC that it was in danger of being held in contempt. The blow that finally left Afrinic without a quorate board and ultimately without a CEO was struck by Crystal Web, a defunct Internet Service Provider that used to offer consumer DSL and fiber broadband in South Africa. Although Crystal Web landed the paralyzing hit, it was hardly the primary litigant in the over 55 court cases brought against AFRINIC since June 2020.

The Justice Department sought on Wednesday to show how Google did all it could to get people to use its search engine and build itself into a $1 trillion search and advertising giant on the second day of a once-in-a-generation antitrust trial. From a report: First out of the gate, the government questioned a former Google executive, Chris Barton, about billion-dollar deals with mobile carriers and others that helped make Google the default search engine. Barton, who was at Google from 2004 to 2011, said the number of Google executives working to win default status with mobile carriers grew dramatically when he was with the company, recognizing the potential growth of handheld devices and early versions of smartphones.

Google's clout in search, the government argues, has helped Google build monopolies in some aspects of online search advertising. Since search is free, Google makes money through advertising. The government says the Alphabet unit paid $10 billion annually to wireless companies like AT&T, device makers like Apple and browser makers like Mozilla to fend off rivals and keep its search engine market share near 90%. In revenue-sharing deals with mobile carriers and Android smartphone makers, Google pressed for its search to be the default and exclusive. If Microsoft's search engine Bing was the default on an Android phone, Barton said, then users would have a "difficult time finding or changing to Google."

Barton said on his LinkedIn profile that he was responsible for leading Google's partnerships with mobile carriers like Verizon and AT&T, estimating that the deals "drive hundreds of millions in revenue." Hal Varian, Google's chief economist, told the court that scale, or the number of search queries Google received, was important, but pushed back during questioning on how important. He also acknowledged giving a speech in which he said certain search queries, for instance for a tennis racquet, were important in effectively advertising to the person who made the query and to subsequent ad revenues.

The U.S. Copyright Office has again rejected copyright protection for art created using artificial intelligence, denying a request by artist Jason M. Allen for a copyright covering an award-winning image he created with the generative AI system Midjourney. From a report: The office said on Tuesday that Allen's science-fiction themed image "Theatre D'opera Spatial" was not entitled to copyright protection because it was not the product of human authorship. The Copyright Office in February rescinded copyrights for images that artist Kris Kashtanova created using Midjourney for a graphic novel called "Zarya of the Dawn," dismissing the argument that the images showed Kashtanova's own creative expression.

It has also rejected a copyright for an image that computer scientist Stephen Thaler said his AI system created autonomously. Allen said on Wednesday that the office's decision on his work was expected, but he was "certain we will win in the end." "If this stands, it is going to create more problems than it solves," Allen said. "This is going to create new and creative problems for the copyright office in ways we can't even speculate yet."

Slash_Account_Dot shares a report: The FBI had a problem. In 2019 the agency was secretly running an encrypted phone company called Anom. Serious organized criminals were using the phones and Anom was gaining popularity. But even though Anom contained a backdoor -- a chunk of code that silently copied every message sent -- the FBI was unable to actually read Anom's messages. The FBI had not obtained legal approval to rummage through that treasure trove of intelligence.

[...] So the agency turned to what court records have described as a "third country," the first country being America and the second being Australia, which ran a beta test of the Anom surveillance operation. The third country allowed the FBI to overcome this legal hurdle. The country hosted the Anom interception server for the FBI, and then provided Anom's messages to American authorities every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. That country "requested its participation be kept confidential," according to a document I previously obtained. The document said the third country was a European Union member but did not name the country itself. "The FBI is neither now nor in the future in a position to release the identity of the aforementioned third country," the document added. That country was Lithuania, 404 Media has learned from a source briefed on the operation but who did not work on it on the U.S. side.

An anonymous Slashdot reader shared this report from the New York Times: The collapse in cryptocurrency prices last year forced a procession of major firms into bankruptcy, triggering a government crackdown and erasing the savings of millions of inexperienced investors. But for a small group of corporate turnaround specialists, crypto's implosion has become a financial bonanza.

Lawyers, accountants, consultants, cryptocurrency analysts and other professionals have racked up more than $700 million in fees since last year from the bankruptcies of five major crypto firms, including the digital currency exchange FTX, according to a New York Times analysis of court records. That sum is likely to grow significantly as the cases unfold over the coming months. Large fees are common in corporate bankruptcies, which require complex and time-intensive legal work to untangle. But in the crypto world, the mounting fees have sparked widespread outrage because many of the people owed money are amateur traders who lost their personal savings, rather than corporations with the ability to weather a financial crisis. Every dollar in fees is deducted from the pool of funds that will be returned to creditors at the end of the bankruptcies.

The fees are "exorbitant and ridiculous," said Daniel Frishberg, a 19-year-old investor who lost about $3,000 when the crypto company Celsius Network filed for bankruptcy last year. "At every hearing, they have an army of people there, and most of them don't need to be there. You don't need 20 people taking notes."

"12 people account for the lion's share of anti-vaccination propaganda posted to three of the leading social media outlets," NPR reported in 2021, citing a study from a London-based group opposed to online hate and disinformation."

But this week Ars Technica reports that one of those 12 "lost a lawsuit attempting to force YouTube to provide access to videos that were removed from the platform after YouTube banned his channels." Joseph Mercola had tried to argue that YouTube owed him more than $75,000 in damages for breaching its own user contract and denying him access to his videos. However, in an order dismissing Mercola's complaint, U.S. magistrate judge Laurel Beeler wrote that according to the contract Mercola signed, YouTube was "under no obligation to host" Mercola's content after terminating his channel in 2021 "for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines by posting medical misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines."

"The court found no breach because 'there is no provision in the Terms of Service that requires YouTube to maintain particular content' or be a 'storage site for users' content,'" Beeler wrote. Because Mercola's contract with YouTube was found to be enforceable and "YouTube had the discretion to take down content that harmed its users," Beeler said that Mercola did not plausibly plead claims for breach of contract or unjust enrichment.

Mercola's complaint was dismissed without leave to amend.
Thanks to ArchieBunker (Slashdot reader #96,909) for sharing the article.

The FTC's chief administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Intuit, the parent company of TurboTax, "deceived consumers" and "engaged in deceptive advertising" by advertising its "Free Edition" tax filing service as free when users ultimately had to pay. The Verge reports: The ruling (PDF) includes several pages of commercials and online ads where Intuit advertised its "Free Edition" software. While the name implies that the service is, well, free, people wound up having to pay to use it -- sparking a lawsuit from the FTC and a $141 million payout to affected users. Meanwhile, Intuit's actually no-cost Free File version, which it launched in partnership with the IRS, remained exceedingly difficult to find. In 2021, Intuit exited the program after the IRS stopped letting companies hide their free filing services from search engines.

The FTC's ALJ determined that there is a "cognizant danger of a recurring violation" by Intuit and issued a cease-and-desist order that prohibits the company from "engaging in deceptive practices in the future." The ruling prevents Intuit from representing a product as free unless it actually is free for everyone to use and "clearly and conspicuously discloses any terms that would limit the offer." In a statement, Intuit called the FTC's investigation process "flawed and highly questionable," noting "Intuit already adheres to most of the advertising practices in the FTC's erroneous decision." The company adds that it has "been clear, fair, and transparent" with customers and remains "committed to free tax preparation."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: For years, some cybersecurity defenders and advocates have called for a kind of Geneva Convention for cyberwar, new international laws that would create clear consequences for anyone hacking civilian critical infrastructure, like power grids, banks, and hospitals. Now the lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague has made it clear that he intends to enforce those consequences -- no new Geneva Convention required. Instead, he has explicitly stated for the first time that the Hague will investigate and prosecute any hacking crimes that violate existing international law, just as it does for war crimes committed in the physical world.

In a little-noticed article released last month in the quarterly publication Foreign Policy Analytics, the International Criminal Court's lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, spelled out that new commitment: His office will investigate cybercrimes that potentially violate the Rome Statute, the treaty that defines the court's authority to prosecute illegal acts, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. "Cyber warfare does not play out in the abstract. Rather, it can have a profound impact on people's lives," Khan writes. "Attempts to impact critical infrastructure such as medical facilities or control systems for power generation may result in immediate consequences for many, particularly the most vulnerable. Consequently, as part of its investigations, my Office will collect and review evidence of such conduct."

When WIRED reached out to the International Criminal Court, a spokesperson for the office of the prosecutor confirmed that this is now the office's official stance. "The Office considers that, in appropriate circumstances, conduct in cyberspace may potentially amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and/or the crime of aggression," the spokesperson writes, "and that such conduct may potentially be prosecuted before the Court where the case is sufficiently grave." Neither Khan's article nor his office's statement to WIRED mention Russia or Ukraine. But the new statement of the ICC prosecutor's intent to investigate and prosecute hacking crimes comes in the midst of growing international focus on Russia's cyberattacks targeting Ukraine both before and after its full-blown invasion of its neighbor in early 2022.

Ryan Salame, a top FTX executive who played a key role in the exchange's political fundraising operations, will forfeit $1.5 billion after pleading guilty on Thursday to federal criminal charges tied to the exchange. CoinDesk reports: Salame, who was co-CEO of FTX's Bahamas entity FTX Digital Markets, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make unlawful contributions and defraud the Federal Election Commission and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transferring business. "I made political contributions in my name that were funded by transfers from an Alameda subsidiary," Salame told Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is also overseeing Bankman-Fried's trial, as he entered his guilty plea. The transfers were "categorized as loans," Salame said, but "it was understood that the would not be repaid." The donations, according to Salame, "were for the benefit of initiatives introduced by others but supported by Sam Bankman-Fried."

As part of his plea agreement with the government, Salame has been ordered to forfeit more than $1.5 billion dollars. He agreed to forfeit $6 million before his sentencing, expected in March of next year. To help cover this amount, Salame has already agreed to give the government a "2021 Porsche automobile" and multiple properties, including two Massachusetts homes and ownership of the East Rood Farm Corporation, an entity Salame owns. Additionally, Salame was ordered to pay more than $5.5 million in restitution to FTX debtors. According to a DOJ document (PDF), the $1.5 billion Salame will forfeit represents "property involved in" the unlicensed money transmitter charge.

Microsoft says it will defend buyers of its artificial intelligence products from copyright infringement lawsuits, an effort by the software giant to ease concerns customers might have about using its AI "Copilots" to generate content based on existing work. From a report: The Microsoft Copilot Copyright Commitment will protect customers as long as they've "used the guardrails and content filters we have built into our products" Hossein Nowbar, General Counsel, Corporate Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary at Microsoft, said in a blog post Thursday. Microsoft also pledged to pay related fines or settlements and said it has taken steps to ensure its Copilots respect copyright.

"We believe in standing behind our customers when they use our products," Nowbar said. "We are charging our commercial customers for our Copilots, and if their use creates legal issues, we should make this our problem rather than our customers' problem." Generative AI applications scoop up existing content such as art, articles and programming code and use it to generate new material that can simplify or automate a range of tasks. Microsoft is baking the technology, developed with partner OpenAI, into many of its biggest products, including Office and Windows, potentially putting customers in legal jeopardy.

schwit1 writes: The Justice Department has spent three years over two presidential administrations building the case that Google illegally abused its power over online search to throttle competition. To defend itself, Google has enlisted hundreds of employees and three powerful law firms and spent millions of dollars on legal fees and lobbyists. On Tuesday, a judge in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will begin considering their arguments at a trial that cuts to the heart of a long-simmering question: Did today's tech giants become dominant by breaking the law?

The case -- U.S. et al v. Google -- is the federal government's first monopoly trial of the modern internet era, as a generation of tech companies has come to wield immense influence over commerce, information, public discourse, entertainment and labor. The trial moves the antitrust battle against those companies to a new phase, shifting from challenging their mergers and acquisitions to more deeply examining the businesses that thrust them into power. Such a consequential case over tech power has not unfolded since the Justice Department took Microsoft to court in 1998 for antitrust violations.

Here's how the Washington Post tells the story of 34-year-old marketer (and former model) Madison Conradis, who discovered nude behind-the-scenes photos from 10 years earlier had leaked after a series of photographer web sites were breached: Now the photos along with her name and contact information were on 4chan, a lawless website that allows users to post anonymously about topics as varied as music and white supremacy... Facebook users registered under fake names such as "Joe Bummer" sent her direct messages demanding that she send new, explicit photos, or else they would further spread the already leaked photos. Some pictures landed in her father's Instagram messages, while marketing clients told her about the nude images that came their way. Madison was at a friend's party when she got a panicked call from the manager of a hotel restaurant where she had worked: The photos had made their way to his inbox. After two years, hoping a new Florida law against cyberharassment would finally end the torture, Madison walked into her local Melbourne police station and shared everything. But she was told that what she was experiencing was not criminal.

What Madison still did not know was that other women were in the clutches of the same man on the internet — and all faced similar reactions from their local authorities. Without help from the police, they would have to pursue justice on their own.
Some cybersleuthing revealed the four women all had one follower in common on Facebook: Christopher Buonocore. (They were his ex-girlfriend, his ex-fiance, his relative, and a childhood friend.) Eventually Madison's sister Christine — who had recently passed the bar exam — "prepared a 59-page document mapping the entire case with evidence and relevant statutes in each of the victims' jurisdictions. She sent the document to all the women involved, and each showed up at her respective law enforcement offices, dropped the packet in front of investigators and demanded a criminal investigation." The sheriff in Florida's Manatee County, Christine's locality, passed the case up to federal investigators. And in July 2019, the FBI took over on behalf of all six women on the basis of the evidence of interstate cyberstalking that Christine had compiled...

The U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida took action at the end of December 2020, but without a federal law criminalizing the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, she charged Buonocore with six counts of cyberstalking instead, which can apply to some cases involving interstate communication done with the intent to kill, injure, intimidate, harass or surveil someone. He pleaded guilty to all counts the following January...

U.S. District Judge Thomas Barber sentenced Buonocore to 15 years in federal prison — almost four years more than the prosecutor had requested.