• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Owners of Mugshots.com Just Got Mugshots of Their Own

Crossbreed

Crossbreed

Neur-D Missionary ☝️
V.I.P Member
The site collects police booking photos then charges to remove them.

The owners of the website Mugshots.com are getting mugshots of their own. California authorities have arrested Sahar Sarid, Kishore Vidya Bhavnanie, Thomas Keesee, and David Usdan on charges of extortion, money laundering, and identity theft, Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. Mugshots collects individuals' names, booking photos and charges from police websites, publishes the data online, and then charges a fee to remove it.
Owners of Mugshots.com Just Got Mugshots of Their Own
 
Ezra said:
Karma strikes again.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? People always are looking up others to see where they are. Even in prison, all the guys were constantly looking up their past friends to find out if they were in or got out of prison. These sites fulfill a good service to everyone.
 
I say that because the people running the site were charged with extorting people to have their mug shots removed, so they themselves are now among those they were extorting and now there are mug shots of them. I read that as "textbook" karma. But perhaps I was wrong.
 
@Mary Anne , some people who were cleared of any wrong-doing had to pay them money to have their pics removed. If they didn't, the pics would have shown up in searches done by landlords, employers, etc.

That is why they are being charged with extortion.
 
Crossbreed said:
@Mary Anne , some people who were cleared of any wrong-doing had to pay them money to have their pics removed. If they didn't, the pics would have shown up in searches done by landlords, employers, etc.

That is why they are being charged with extortion.
Click to expand...

I did not know this company, but I would imagine all sites in the business of posting mug shots charge $$$ to remove mug shots. This is called "business." I dont know about the "extortion," but a set fee charged for removal seems reasonable.

Thats why it's best to go with governmental run sites. They probabl don't remove mug shots, and therefore, don' remove listings.
 
Surely posting mugshots from a Police website would be illegal under the Data Protection Act anyway? There's a new law coming in in the UK this Friday apparently that protects your info online, a kind of rewrite of the DPA.
 
Mugshots publishes mug shots in paper format every week or so. These newspapers/magazines are sold all over the place but especially at convenience stores in the US. Once someone's mug shot is printed on paper and distributed to the public for sale, there is nothing Mugshots can do to "delete" the images. The photos are in the public domain.

Arrests are public information and rightfully so. It doesn't matter if the arrested person is ultimately found innocent or guilty. The fact of the arrest is public and anyone can obtain that information without using this company to do it for them. If Mugshots can download the PUBLIC images on government websites, then so can you. There is nothing confidential or private or unlawful about the re-publication of something that is already available to the public.
 
Mary Terry said:
Mugshots publishes mug shots in paper format every week or so. These newspapers/magazines are sold all over the place but especially at convenience stores in the US. Once someone's mug shot is printed on paper and distributed to the public for sale, there is nothing Mugshots can do to "delete" the images. The photos are in the public domain.

Arrests are public information and rightfully so. It doesn't matter if the arrested person is ultimately found innocent or guilty. The fact of the arrest is public and anyone can obtain that information without using this company to do it for them. If Mugshots can download the PUBLIC images on government websites, then so can you. There is nothing confidential or private or unlawful about the re-publication of something that is already available to the public.
Click to expand...
 
Thats what I was thinking. That is extortion if they promise to remove info that is public knowledge.

The other thing I want to say is that more poor people go to jail then wealthy people. Wealthy people can afford to pay to expunge records and scrub their criminal backgrounds clean. I saw plenty of people erase their .."guilty" legal messes and take no responsibiliy after beating wives, or plowing drunk into property and people- just by paying top lawyers, and finagleing the legal system. Poor people stay poor, and can't pay and are ruined forever. They are found guilty more often. They stay in jail and prison far longer. They do not have access to the best legal teams, or any at all sometimes.

I am just tired of people trying to buy their way out of their messes.


The organizations that perform background checks know how to check regardless of some publication that might not be accurate.
People were paying because the publication is readily available, but public online documents are readily available also.
 
Yep. Just another thread that reflects the difference in US laws versus those in the UK. While this might appear to be egregious in the UK, it's business as usual all over the US.

Not to mention that federal and state governments' law enforcement will provide the public with information pertinent to sex offenders under the provisions of "Megan's Law".

In our judicial system one is innocent until proven guilty. However if one is formally arrested, it becomes a matter of public record unless the arrest itself is formally expunged. Though even then there are certain entities which can review expunged records. And in terms of the public sector regulating the private sector along such lines, it does appear to be minimal at best. Not really surprising to see someone attempt to illegally exploit people along such lines.

Arrest records can be formally "stricken", but that doesn't mean they permanently disappear either. Besides, bureaucracies are anything but perfect. Reminds me of so many policyholders who would claim that their DMV records were expunged...only for insurers to determine otherwise. :eek:
 
Last edited:
But on a heavier note there's the "Golden State Killer", AKA the "East Area Rapist". Twelve suspected murders and over fifty suspected rapes. I think as many as four sexual assaults that took place when I lived there on a particular street.

A serial sex killer who was a former police officer. How's that for irony?

History is full of such contradictions. :eek:
 
Last edited:
I’m so glad to live in a country where mugshots are not made public, and your identity is (technically) protected until you have been proven to be guilty. Even then, the convicted’s full name isn’t usually made public. That way, when someone has served their time, they won’t have their name popping up in searches left and right, allowing them to move on with their life. For many jobs you are required to get a governmental attest showing you have never been convicted of a crime, but at least this way you won’t be branded a criminal for everyone to see.

Making a profit off of other people’s arrests leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Glad these people got what they deserved.
 
Unfortunately our constitutional freedom of the press can occur at the expense of others. Somewhat relative to the press ascertaining "absence of malice". With no deliberate or overt attempt to malign suspects. Where arrest records are generally open to the public unless they concern an active or ongoing investigation in accordance with state and federal laws.

With virtually any suspect being exposed to further personal injury as a result of their arrest going public, whether or not they are ultimately convicted of a crime. I understand the thought process relative to constitutional law, but it doesn't mean I like it either. o_O
 
Last edited:
Judge said:
Unfortunately our constitutional freedom of the press can occur at the expense of others. Somewhat relative to the press ascertaining "absence of malice".
Click to expand...
Most legitimate news sources will make the appropriate corrections, when they are apprised of them, without charge.
 
Crossbreed said:
Most legitimate news sources will make the appropriate corrections, when they are apprised of them, without charge.
Click to expand...

Yes- journalism errors ethically require corrections.

However the course of due process reported in the media isn't an "error" as such. It just reflects whether a person arrested, charged and prosecuted was either convicted or acquitted. With no malice intended, but also no apologies either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom