SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the cue-the-"not-so-virgin-islands"-jokes... dept.
Two former staffers of a congresswoman were indicted Thursday on charges of posting nude pictures of the lawmaker and her husband on social media and of lying to investigators about it.
The indictments surround former aides to Stacey Plaskett, a Democrat and non-voting delegate to the House representing the Virgin Islands. The cyberstalking charges allege that Juan McCullum, Plaskett's general counsel, published nude images of the congresswoman and her husband on a fictitious Facebook account and elsewhere. He accessed the images, the authorities said, when he took Plaskett's iPhone to an Apple Store for repair.
Another staffer, secretary Dorene Browne-Louis, 45, is accused of covering up last year's scandal.
According to the government:
The indictment alleges that, during the course of his employment, McCullum offered in March 2016 to assist the House member in repairing the member's malfunctioning, password-protected cellular iPhone by taking the device to a local Apple store. According to the indictment, the House member provided McCullum with the device solely to have the iPhone repaired. McCullum was not given permission to take, copy, or distribute any of the contents of the iPhone. The iPhone contained the private, nude images and videos. (PDF)
Federal prosecutors said that "McCullum also sent text messages to Browne-Louis alerting her to his activities." Browne-Louis is accused of deleting those messages and is charged with making "false, incomplete, and misleading statements" to a grand jury and investigators.
Browne-Louis pleaded not guilty to the accusations on Thursday and remains out of jail. No court date has been set for McCullum. The 35-year-old McCullum is a former reality TV star known as "Pretty" on VH1's I love New York.
Source: ArsTechnica
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:53AM (3 children)
Yeah, sure, if someone needs jail time, that's the victim. This will teach them next time to give guys a phone with personal content and the password.
That guy? He was just (and only maybe) a douche, nothing criminal in that; mind you, see that nothing bad happens to him, otherwise jmorris and frojack may unleash the hell for learning the bad lessons of this world we live in. They'd be morally justified to do so, by the height of the horses they a riding, you see?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by chuckugly on Wednesday July 19 2017, @04:32AM
I guess she shouldn't have worn that short skirt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @05:03AM (1 child)
She was an exhibitionist and was flirting with them. And if she got off on THEM seeing those pics, imagine the orgasm she'd have from the ENTIRE INTERNET seeing them.
Seriously, people nowadays are into freaky ass shit 'in public', under some sort of mistaken belief that A. It isn't a felony sex crime with registered offender status (US, UK and lots of other 'think of the children -- punitively' places. ) and B. that even if they do it in public it will never come out, because who cares, and even if they did care, what are the odds it would end up online?
SMH AND FTL (their in place of my). This sort of stupidity is what has made these past 2-3 generations worse than the boomer crowds. And they certainly had plenty of stupidity of their own, but somehow we've managed to top it with even bigger idiots today.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:48PM
Maybe it just slipped her mind. She might not have realized it was possible that the phone would allow the staffer to access the images.
I've been gobsmacked many, many times by the strange notions people have about their computing devices. Many people imagine, directly contrary to Countess Lovelace's elucidations, that computing devices have an agency all their own.
Most people view the situation this way. Say she had a servant who she had take these nude pictures, and for whatever reason she also had that servant carry around the developed pictures everywhere the two of them went. Naturally, if she had the servant visit a doctor, she would be able to fully expect that the servant would keep the pictures private. It's not a perfect analogy, but I believe that's where most people are coming from. They haven't comprehended Lovelace's Notes, and they believe that there is a tiny homunculus inside that looks like either Leonard Nimoy or Jeff Bridges that is making their computing device go.
—
(In feminism, this homunculus becomes even more of a character since he'll refuse to run compilers or command lines for womyn-born-womyn users. In fact, it seems many feminists have so completely fooled themselves with this homunculus theory that they don't even try and actually discourage other women from trying! What a bunch of marklar! How is that kind of attitude feminist at all? But, of course, being an inferior, incomplete being, I would never understand the profound wisdom of being victimized by a homunculus inside my computer who is an agent of the patriarchy. Personally, I've stuck with Sailor Mercury if my computer must have a homunculus operating it, but I imagine that's horrifically misogynist of me in ways that will fill me with complete and utter unsurprise.)