Cecilia Barnes, 48, has sued Internet giant Yahoo! for US$3 million, claiming the company failed to remove nude pictures of her from a Web site after promising to do so at her request. The suit has been filed in Multnomah County.
The photos were posted on the Web by Barnes’s ex-boyfriend. Barnes claims he started posting unauthorised profiles of her, including the disputed photos, her email address and her work phone number, in December last year.
Also, the former boyfriend posted in Yahoo! groups masquerading as Barnes, and directed men to the unauthorised profiles. She has had men approach her work place soliciting her for sex. Yahoo! has not commented on the suit.
Can someone post a link to the nood pics plz, I need to confirm the facts with my own eyes before I jump on the conclusions. Plz beware that she is 48yrs old so unless the pics are from a long time ago or she aged well I am willing to skip the "with my own eyes" and take your word for it, as usual.
Its typical to sue the person/company that makes the most money...but she should be suing HER EX BOYFRIEND!!
Yahoo didn't personally put those pics up.
"Cecilia Barnes, 48, in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Multnomah County, claims an ex-boyfriend began posting unauthorized personal profiles of her containing the photos in December. The profiles included her e-mail address and work phone number."
This means that he would set up an accound with Yahoo *probably most of them looking identical* and throw those pics in there, and then trick people via ONLINE IDENTITY THEFT by saying he as the woman and showing her email address and phone number. After googling I couldn't find her pic, so at least the boyfriend didn't put it anywhere else online...
To wrap this up: I'M TIRED OF PEOPLE SUING BIG BIZ JUST TO BE SUING THEM. THAT WOMAN ISN'T WORTH 3MIL. WHAT SHE SHOULD DO IS GO TO REGULAR CIRCUIT COURT AND SUE HIM THERE FOR ONLINE INDENITY THEFT AND DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. LEAVE YAHOO ALONE!!!
I'm sorry, but it pisses me off to see lawsuits like kids suing McDonalds or someone suing their workplace because they stubbed their toe. Those lawsuits - which usually get thrown out - cost taxpayers A LOT of money that could be going towards are horrible school systems or feeding a child so he doesn't go to sleep hungry. ARG!
is not suing Yahoo! because the pictures are there. She is suing them because she requested that the pictures and info that were fraudulently posted be removed and Yahoo! didn't comply in a timely fashion. Her legal action against the former boyfriend is a totally separate issue.
Yahoo can't police EVERYTHING put on their website. The most they can do is the "adult section" of their profiles, which is a binding agreement that the viewer of the profile is over 18. As for a filter, it comes down to the agrument across the nation in libraries and schools..how and what do you filter out?
I think this is a woman who saw how people are suing big biz and winning...ignoring the lawsuits that don't even make it to court that aren't reported. If the Ex had the 3 mill, she would be suing him - which would be the correct thing to do.
I suggest that if this person was reading this post right now, that she should just go on Judge Judy or Joe Brown and get the national attention that she's trying to receive. She might win a cool 100 dollars from the EX...maybe no more than a thousand.
I'll say it again because I really stand by this: Yahoo shouldn't be held responsible for someone using photos that they do not have control over. Yahoo could have easily shut down one of his acounts in question and he could have opened up another. The ONLY way Yahoo can control to whom a screen name belongs to is by using personal information - which would defeat the anonomous (i mispelled that) of a person and restrict those who can't provide vaild information.
Its a catch 22 in a sense: you want safety and comfort but most aren't willing to give up information other than their name and street (which can easily be fake)I say Yahoo hands are clean, and she is obviously suing them only for the money.
Also..how is this really worth 3 million dollars?! They didn't insult her, they didn't discriminate against her, they didn't touch her...in fact, from the article, the most they did was probably not respond to her request in an orderly fashion. I guarentee if she would have called their 800 number (its somewhere on Yahoo!) they would have told her there was nothing they could do except block the EX's IP address and report him to the police..and Ms Cecilia would have to press the charges. WHY DIDN'T SHE PRESS CHARGES?!
Its just pisses me off that people try and shift blame from one person to another for money. All she had to do was contact local police and let them handle it...
I commented in my last post what I'll comment here...Yahoo can't be responsible for that.
Yes, they were on Yahoo's server per say, but they were uploaded by a third party - not Yahoo. I guarentee that if the full story was displayed (yahoo refused to comment obviously) that they would have said that they took action against the person.
From reading the story you get the notion that the EX created numerous screen names, which basically makes it hard for yahoo to control. Yes, they can delete screen names and block IPs, but after that its nothing they can do.
I can also guarentee you that if she were to call Yahoo (there's an 800 number somewhere) that she would have been told to contact local police because he is clearly defaming her and if they are unauthorised photos, he is committing either online or regular theft.
Basically, to sum up what I just posted..its not yahoo's responsibility to make sure photos aren't shown. They probably did what they say they will do in the agreement that she had to accept to receive her S/N, and left the door open so she could handle the situation by herself.
Also...she only gave them 2 months! Anyone knows if you send a letter to a company as big as Yahoo, it takes that two months to even get someone to read it. I bet she didn't make a copy of the letter and probably sent it to the wrong office.
it was in the yahoo message boards...last updated 12/28/04...
*please..no one under 18 looking at this. VERY GRAPHIC PHOTOS* *hotrock's waiver*
http://profiles.yahoo.com/ I must say she's not really that atrrctive and if the profile gets erased..it just shows her left breast and her face. Its not 3 Mil worth at all (not saying I would give her the 3 mil as you can see in the posts) Her photo album is...well its just say hrm. The guy even put pics of her w/her parents...damn.
Im sorry but...its kind of tiring seeing people say "wasting tax payer's money" You know she has the right to sue, so she can do whatever she pleases. She just has a different opinion than you do about it.
Its almost like saying... man those Christians are wasting their time praying...their churches waste our tax dollars for being tax free...because i don't believe in God.
Fact is...Everyone pays taxes , so everyone is entitled to use the system as they want. If its not right...then its illegal.
Also i wonder if you read this part at all? " alleging the Internet site failed to fulfill a promise to remove nude pictures of her from the Web." Then "a promise" It looks like they promised to remove them, if you say yahoo shouldn't be policing it...well it looks like they said they would.
I think two months is a long time...with your nude pictures up...and wow...people coming to her work asking for sex. She could lose her job over that.
I would want 3 mil just to get out of where i live and somewhere else.
Im not saying i agree with this lady..or i would do the same, but there are always two perspectives...and no one knows all the facts here, very short article. The court will decide if yahoo is responisble, and in my view yahoo put themselves responsible by "promising" to remove the pictures.
Did you ever think it might be harder to sue ex-bf....she has to prove he uses the name. He could use yahoo at a library for all we know, and how do you prove it was him using it?
it was posted in a yahoo message board...so basically if you didn't see it after 10 mins of me posting it, you missed out...and unless you like looking at average looking mature women w/suncancerish skin and nasty tan lines...
But to comment on spooky's post: If you were to live in southern il, you would be pissed off that someone is suing over this.
We have had brain doctors, heart doctors, stomach doctors, general doctors leave because people in IL overflooded the courts with crappy lawsuits..and it got so bad that the Insurance companies made it so you would have to pay 5 times more than doctors had to pay to be covered by malpractices. (I can say the profesions of the doctors, but i'm a horrible speller)
If you live in the small city I live in, and you're in an accident, you would now have to be flown via helecopter to a ST Louis hospital just to receive attention. Higher medical bills are now present. And this is all because some lawyer on TV can use loopholes in a system and a crazy judge to get millions for not receiving aspirn after the surgery or some bull like that.
So when I read this story, I get pissed knowing this company is being sued just because someone posted pics of her online and haven't "removed the in time".
This is potentially just like having to put warning labels on a roll of tape, saying "this may stick to your skin" Meaning yes, she may have contacted Yahoo about her pics being online. But, once again, Yahoo may have referred her to her local police to deal with this if she specifically knew it was her boyfriend. OR, Yahoo may have deleted a profile - I was told on the message boards that there was another profile of those pics that was quickly deleted. They could have been working on it while she was waiting..because she's not the only person that it has happened to.
I'm just defending Yahoo on this one because I know that she knows who put those pics up, and she knows who videotaped it for the screenshots. She should have handled this situation by going to the police and demanding that they put a stop to it (I can bet good money she didn't even do that) Instead, she sent probably a poorly written letter . And once again, if I could find the number to Yahoo when I potentially had identity theft occuring, she could have also.
But then again, until Yahoo tells their side of the story, no one will really knows what happened. I can just assume that this is another crappy case of a woman wanting money and hopefully it will get thrown out so no one has to pay for this --- even though it'll only be realistically a few cents out of a taxpayer's pocket.
but seriously if it was a scam, its a crappy one. The question would still be asked: Why only one letter if you didn't see improvements. AND why didn't you call their 800 number, because actually its harder to find the mailing address than the number. She could have spoken to an agent, or more than likely left a message. She could have tape recorded it and had proof that she made contact.
I think its just someone looking for that quick buck.
"This product not for use by idiots. Any wounds (mental or physical) caused by use of this product in a recklessly stupid fashion is not our fault." However in the case of technology like the internet this gets tricky because everyone starts out as a newbie dummy at some point.
Back on subject. I agree that the bofreind shoud face prosecution. I'm not sure how much blame I'm willing to assign to Yahoo yet. But I know it's not 3 mill worth.
She specifically requested that Yahoo! remove a specific profile. This profile violated the terms and conditions of such a profile by posting erotic pictures that the person establishing the profile had no right to publish. Yahoo! was negligent because they did not react with the necessary speed to avoid litigation. Cease and Desist letters do not mean that you cease or decist when you get an extra 5 minutes. They order you to cease and desist immediately. Every C&D letter I have ever seen actually used the words "immediately cease and desist". If Yahoo! did not comply with her cease and desist order then Yahoo! is indeed liable. Since a link to the profile was posted here, it is obvious that Yahoo! did not act in good faith with the terms of their own contracts with profile holders or with the terms and conditions of the cease and desist order. Yahoo! is negligent and liable. The act of posting pictures of the woman were an invasion of her privacy on the part of the Ex, the hesitation to remove the profile and all of its content in a timely fashion on the part of Yahoo! leaves Yahoo! open to litigation. Negligence on the part of Yahoo! would be easy for any decent attorney to prove. The first question to be answered would be, "Had the content of the photos been illegal (i.e. beastiality, child porn, photos of other crimes in progress) would Yahoo! have acted more quickly?" Since Yahoo! has a long record on the internet, it should be easily shown that Yahoo! does indeed have the capability to shut down profiles and remove content with more haste than was used in this case. If Yahoo! can somehow pull this one out of their collective arses, negligence can still be proven by showing that other content hosting providers have this capability and have used it in the past thus proving that not only does the capability exist, but that Yahoo! more than likely had access to that technology but chose not to implement it in this case. This is not a frivolous law suit. This is an invasion of privacy issue that is Constitutionally protected. Her basic human rights were violated and Yahoo!, as a good steward, has a responsibility to the general public to protect the privacy of members of the general public by removing the unlawful publication of erotic materials featuring this woman.
