View Full Version : HA HA! - Stupid paedo!
Mangetout
10-09-2007, 09:09 AM
http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/vico/Default.asp
I can't help laughing at the stupid chump. He took the trouble to obscure his face in photographs of him having sex with children, but he used method that could be reversed to recover most of the orginal picture information.
HA HA!
OneCentStamp
10-09-2007, 09:36 AM
That's too funny*. What a total dipshit. I can imagine the German equivalent of "D'OH!!!" escaping his lips when he saw himself on Europe's Most Wanted. :p
* no, I don't mean the crime itself.
Stranger On A Train
10-09-2007, 09:49 AM
Hopeful he will be caught, tried, convicted, and sent to prison where someone will correct his face to look like the original pictures on his website.
Stranger
Wee Bairn
10-09-2007, 09:55 AM
These aren't usually the brightest guys- Gary Glitter was nabbed when he took his kiddie porn laden computer to the shop for repairs. :o
OneCentStamp
10-09-2007, 09:58 AM
These aren't usually the brightest guys- Gary Glitter was nabbed when he took his kiddie porn laden computer to the shop for repairs. :oAnd Gary has done nothing in the 10+ years since then to dispel the idea that he's a nitwit completely at the mercy of his sick desires. Did his recent SE Asian debacles trip your radar?
Qadgop the Mercotan
10-09-2007, 09:59 AM
Nice unmasking.
Tho I bet there's lots of 'home photographers' showing their (or their SO's) naughty bits on the web with blurred faces who are now gonna sweat bullets to realize those effects can be reversed!
Omegaman
10-09-2007, 10:00 AM
Nice unmasking.
Tho I bet there's lots of 'home photographers' showing their (or their SO's) naughty bits on the web with blurred faces who are now gonna sweat bullets to realize those effects can be reversed!
The more the merrier.
OneCentStamp
10-09-2007, 10:01 AM
Nice unmasking.
Tho I bet there's lots of 'home photographers' showing their (or their SO's) naughty bits on the web with blurred faces who are now gonna sweat bullets to realize those effects can be reversed!Yes, sweating bullets, but at least their SOs are old enough to drive.
Wee Bairn
10-09-2007, 10:04 AM
And Gary has done nothing in the 10+ years since then to dispel the idea that he's a nitwit completely at the mercy of his sick desires. Did his recent SE Asian debacles trip your radar?
What's this world coming to when someone convicted of kiddie porn charges can't even go to Vietnam in the company of a 12 year old girl without people assuming the worst? :)
Mangetout
10-09-2007, 10:14 AM
Nice unmasking.
Tho I bet there's lots of 'home photographers' showing their (or their SO's) naughty bits on the web with blurred faces who are now gonna sweat bullets to realize those effects can be reversed!
If they're blurred, they're probably safe - this guy did a spiral distortion that is easily reversed by just doing a spiral distortion the other direction.
OneCentStamp
10-09-2007, 10:35 AM
If they're blurred, they're probably safe - this guy did a spiral distortion that is easily reversed by just doing a spiral distortion the other direction.And it really makes it one of those rare cases where the only appropriate word is...
pwned :p
Szlater
10-09-2007, 10:50 AM
Man, I hate paediatricians!
Dunderman
10-09-2007, 11:15 AM
Since I saw this, I haven't been able to stop thinking: Thank God evil people tend to be stupid. I feel like grabbing him by the place where his lapels ought to be if he weren't raping a kid and scream "BLACK SQUARE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! BLACK FUCKING SQUARE! YOU CAN DO IT IN MS PAINT!".
OneCentStamp
10-09-2007, 12:01 PM
I feel like grabbing him by the place where his lapels ought to be if he weren't raping a kidSo...where are his lapels when he is raping a kid? :confused:
;)
So this must've been what I was watching at the gym...
CNN was on without sound and some guys face kept unswirling. For the life of me, I couldn't understand what the heck was going on?
This whole videotaping illegal acts thing has always been a mystery to me.
Borborygmi
10-09-2007, 01:31 PM
If you were at the gym and some guy's face kept unswirling, I'm surprised you were able to concentrate on CNN at all. Especially if the sound was off. ;)
Der Trihs
10-09-2007, 04:20 PM
This whole videotaping illegal acts thing has always been a mystery to me.It's simple enough; an awful lot of criminals are fools.
I'm reminded of a crook who stole an instant camera from a cop's desk, took a picture of his own face to see if it worked, and tossed the photo into the cop's wastebasket.
11811
10-09-2007, 04:32 PM
If you were at the gym and some guy's face kept unswirling, I'm surprised you were able to concentrate on CNN at all. Especially if the sound was off. ;)
If it were Larry King's face :eek:
The Great Sun Jester
10-09-2007, 04:41 PM
"BLACK SQUARE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! BLACK FUCKING SQUARE! YOU CAN DO IT IN MS PAINT!".
Does that work though? I seem to recall that pasting one image over another is just that--and that the pasted image can be removed later by...people who can do that sort of thing. No?
If you were at the gym and some guy's face kept unswirling, I'm surprised you were able to concentrate on CNN at all. Especially if the sound was off. ;)
Well at the gym it's a common occurrence, I rarely see it on CNN though...
counsel wolf
10-09-2007, 04:55 PM
Does that work though? I seem to recall that pasting one image over another is just that--and that the pasted image can be removed later by...people who can do that sort of thing. No?
Depends on the image format. Programs like photoshop have native formats that preserve things like layers and undo buffers but your generic run of the mill jpeg, bitmap or other simple format will not. Once the are is replaced with solid black and the image is saved, there's no getting it back.
Princhester
10-09-2007, 06:12 PM
There was an Urgent Alert that came around our office warning of a similar problem with "blacklining" documents. Apparently some law office in the states wanted to release certain documents but with parts blacked out. They blacklined them using "black highlighter" in (I think) MSWord. Then they .pdf'ed them and emailed them out: but all you had to do to see the text underneath was highlight the relevant parts with your mouse and the text under showed up.
Mangetout
10-09-2007, 06:25 PM
Depends on the image format. Programs like photoshop have native formats that preserve things like layers and undo buffers but your generic run of the mill jpeg, bitmap or other simple format will not. Once the are is replaced with solid black and the image is saved, there's no getting it back.
I think there are some standard formats (i.e. not proprietary to this or that bit of image handling software) that can contain layered images (I thought png was one, but I can't find anything about layers in the spec) - and in some cases, a photo editing app might leave them unflattened when saving to such a format, but by and large you're right - a web image with a black square added to it will not be reversible.
SCSimmons
10-09-2007, 11:32 PM
This whole videotaping illegal acts thing has always been a mystery to me.
For many of these types of criminals, if they had the rationality and self-control to restrain themselves from recording their crimes, they wouldn't be committing them in the first place ...
gazpacho
10-09-2007, 11:48 PM
There was an Urgent Alert that came around our office warning of a similar problem with "blacklining" documents. Apparently some law office in the states wanted to release certain documents but with parts blacked out. They blacklined them using "black highlighter" in (I think) MSWord. Then they .pdf'ed them and emailed them out: but all you had to do to see the text underneath was highlight the relevant parts with your mouse and the text under showed up.The US government has been embarrassed by this one more than one occasion. It is the price you pay for a really useful undo function.
Princhester
10-10-2007, 12:07 AM
Except it wasn't the undo function. I must admit, my usual method of making an MSWord document somewhat less malleable in the hands of its recipient is to convert it to .pdf. Before I heard of this particular problem, the fact that a .pdf could have information in it beyond the surface appearance of the document had not occurred to me.
Well, itīs a rather appropiate method of masking the face of a twisted perv. Specially for its uselessness.
gazpacho
10-10-2007, 12:30 AM
Except it wasn't the undo function. I must admit, my usual method of making an MSWord document somewhat less malleable in the hands of its recipient is to convert it to .pdf. Before I heard of this particular problem, the fact that a .pdf could have information in it beyond the surface appearance of the document had not occurred to me.Yours is a common problem. "What you see is what you get" is subtly different from "what you see is what is there".
Converting it to PDF makes it more malleable. PDF is a well documented format. Heck it is practically the native format for Macs these days. All non microsoft programs that interact with word are to a large extent reverse engineered and thus prone to bugs that PDF readers can avoid with less work.
Mangetout
10-10-2007, 02:57 AM
There was an Urgent Alert that came around our office warning of a similar problem with "blacklining" documents. Apparently some law office in the states wanted to release certain documents but with parts blacked out. They blacklined them using "black highlighter" in (I think) MSWord. Then they .pdf'ed them and emailed them out: but all you had to do to see the text underneath was highlight the relevant parts with your mouse and the text under showed up.That's quite lovely. Bless 'em.
I don't think I've ever used the highlighter in Word before, but I can't help finding it very amusing that someone would imagine it is destructive when the highlight colour happens to match the text colour. I just did a test on this and highlighting the text in the PDF doesn't show it up (on my machine - might work out differently for different versions of Word/adobe reader), but copying it out and pasting into notepad does.
E-Sabbath
10-10-2007, 04:37 AM
It's worse than that: When dealing with a Word document that has revision history turned on... it's quite possible to undo the revision history. All sorts of interesting things have been found out that way.
Princhester
10-10-2007, 04:41 AM
That's quite lovely. Bless 'em.
I don't think I've ever used the highlighter in Word before, but I can't help finding it very amusing that someone would imagine it is destructive when the highlight colour happens to match the text colour. I just did a test on this and highlighting the text in the PDF doesn't show it up (on my machine - might work out differently for different versions of Word/adobe reader), but copying it out and pasting into notepad does.
Hmm. Maybe I left out a step. Or maybe the latest version of Acrobat is different.
Anyway, still works by cut/paste, as you say.
To be fair though, if I'd been asked about it before receiving the Alert, my reasoning might have been: "well a .pdf can be an image format. And the image created by black highlighter over black text is just a blob'o'black. Why would Acrobat bother encoding the fact that the blob'o'black was comprised some bits of black text and some bits of black highlighter."
Anyway, the moral is print it out, then scan it back in and save the image as a .pdf.
Princhester
10-10-2007, 04:46 AM
It's worse than that: When dealing with a Word document that has revision history turned on... it's quite possible to undo the revision history. All sorts of interesting things have been found out that way.
A barrister on the other side accidentally sent my barrister an MSWord document with embedded history during a multimillion dollar trial. No doubt he'd not had "track changes" turned on when he sent it, so he didn't notice what he'd done. My barrister did have "track changes" on when he opened it, so all the revisions were there to see. There was nothing damaging involved, but we did enjoy giving the other barrister shit about it for days afterwards.
JohnBckWLD
10-10-2007, 05:05 AM
And Gary has done nothing in the 10+ years since then to dispel the idea that he's a nitwit completely at the mercy of his sick desires. Did his recent SE Asian debacles trip your radar?Of course he's a nitwit. The proof lies in the fact he didn't come up with the "ingenious" Townshend defense, I aaah yeah, I was a downloading kiddy porn for research, yeah ah, research, that's it.
JRDelirious
10-10-2007, 07:54 AM
Yours is a common problem. "What you see is what you get" is subtly different from "what you see is what is there".
Indeed. The concept is that what you see on screen is what you'll get when you print it to paper. As mentioned, what you need to redact is to print, scan and save as pdf IMAGE; BUT please: where it's adequate and appropriate. If you're sending me a memo requiring me to add your two-page-long amendment to the report, then for Christ's sake, DO send it to me in a format that lets me copy-and-paste!
Also relevant to the OP-referenced perv's plight (and that of others of his colleagues) is that nowadays your digital camera or your photo software will likely encode into your saved file a bunch of extra information. It's not unusual for me to hover over a thumbnail and see "IMG000345 Nikon F4X 20061228 23:05 1200x1800SF" or some other such tagging. Very helpful, I should say.
BTW, agree somewhat with SCSimmons, really, MOST criminals (*notable exception: some terrorist groups) do try to avoid recording actual evidence. The difference with a certain subset of the child preds, is that on top of the compulsion, there is apparently some sort of weird sense of "giving back to the community" :rolleyes: at work.
Mangetout
10-10-2007, 09:34 AM
Of course he's a nitwit. The proof lies in the fact he didn't come up with the "ingenious" Townshend defense, I aaah yeah, I was a downloading kiddy porn for research, yeah ah, research, that's it.
This excuse also works if you like the taste of whales.
Steve MB
10-10-2007, 09:39 AM
I think there are some standard formats (i.e. not proprietary to this or that bit of image handling software) that can contain layered images (I thought png was one, but I can't find anything about layers in the spec) - and in some cases, a photo editing app might leave them unflattened when saving to such a format, but by and large you're right - a web image with a black square added to it will not be reversible.
Any time I save a Paint Shop Pro image with multiple layers to PNG, I get a warning message that the layers will be merged in the output, and when the PNG file is opened, sure enough, it has one layer.
For many of these types of criminals, if they had the rationality and self-control to restrain themselves from recording their crimes, they wouldn't be committing them in the first place ...
I don't know, as messed up as these people clearly are, I have a tough time believing that there isn't enough common sense left in their head to say, gee, this is illegal. Maybe I better not press record?
But yeah, I suppose I see what you're saying.
Steve MB
10-10-2007, 10:06 AM
I don't know, as messed up as these people clearly are, I have a tough time believing that there isn't enough common sense left in their head to say, gee, this is illegal. Maybe I better not press record?
If the President of the United States systematically tape-recorded himself doing illegal things, how can you expect better from some common schlub?
Of course he's a nitwit. The proof lies in the fact he didn't come up with the "ingenious" Townshend defense, I aaah yeah, I was a downloading kiddy porn for research, yeah ah, research, that's it. Fuck you, jackass. Pete Townshend is not a pedophile.
Think of it this way...if he was so fucking STUPID (and yes, he was stupid) to use his real credit card number to access an illegal kiddy porn site...how come there was NO kiddy porn on his computer, a la Gary Glitter??
Stop spreading ignorance and focus instead on the real sick freaks (like the guy we're talking about in this thread -- or Chester the Molester (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/02/national/main3317536.shtml).)
Ponder Stibbons
10-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Update: We have an identification (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21307230/).
D_Odds
10-15-2007, 01:08 PM
Fuck you, jackass. Pete Townshend is not a pedophile.
Think of it this way...if he was so fucking STUPID (and yes, he was stupid) to use his real credit card number to access an illegal kiddy porn site...how come there was NO kiddy porn on his computer, a la Gary Glitter??Streaming video?
I got no horse in this race - I'm just surprised by the level of outrage heaped on JohnBckWLD for a mostly innocuous aside. But hey, to each his/her own.
Wallenstein
10-16-2007, 03:47 AM
Update: We have an identification (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21307230/).
He's been named as Christopher Paul Neil, 32, an English teacher from Canada.
bbs2k
10-16-2007, 03:52 AM
Crap, you beat me to it!
Wee Bairn
10-16-2007, 08:14 AM
The only person who knows for sure if Pete Townshend is a paedophile is of course Pete Townshend. Didn't he write "Rough Boys" ;)
The recent article about the guy in the OP mentions that before they released his photo, they weighed whether they should, becasue of the possible harm that could come to the paedophile if people see him in person and take action. Unreal that that would be a concern- it's not like there's any possbility of his innocence.
OneCentStamp
10-16-2007, 08:36 AM
The only person who knows for sure if Pete Townshend is a paedophile is of course Pete Townshend. Didn't he write "Rough Boys" ;)
Ironic, considering his preference for smooth boys. :)
Mangetout
10-16-2007, 08:52 AM
The recent article about the guy in the OP mentions that before they released his photo, they weighed whether they should, becasue of the possible harm that could come to the paedophile if people see him in person and take action. Unreal that that would be a concern- it's not like there's any possbility of his innocence.I don't think he'll turn up alive now. He'll either be killed by vigilantes, kill himself, or simply never be found (possibly because of one of the previous possibilities happened), I reckon.
Wallenstein
10-16-2007, 09:08 AM
I don't think he'll turn up alive now. He'll either be killed by vigilantes, kill himself, or simply never be found, I reckon.
I think the concern was more that the offenders will now realise (as noted in this thread) that they need to choose a more secure way of masking their identities.
I would guess a lot of them just use a basic photoshop filter - blur, spin, pixellate etc - now they know it can be undone they will amend their actions.
Mangetout
10-16-2007, 09:31 AM
I think the concern was more that the offenders will now realise (as noted in this thread) that they need to choose a more secure way of masking their identities.
I would guess a lot of them just use a basic photoshop filter - blur, spin, pixellate etc - now they know it can be undone they will amend their actions.
I guess that was inevitable anyway though - if it means this one guy got caught, that's probably better than nothing.
Steve MB
10-18-2007, 01:38 PM
The recent article about the guy in the OP mentions that before they released his photo, they weighed whether they should, becasue of the possible harm that could come to the paedophile if people see him in person and take action. Unreal that that would be a concern- it's not like there's any possbility of his innocence.
Or that somebody else out there might look like his twin brother.... :dubious:
Waverly
10-18-2007, 02:56 PM
I dont go around hiding identities, but I know my way around photoshop. Many photoshop filters use a translation algorithm. If the algorithm has a one to one correspondence, or close to it, you can make some educated guesses along with trial and error to reverse the effect. The swirl I saw on CNN is this way. The police were clever, but they aren't magical.
The more basic blur method is not one to one. Depending upon how coarse you go, it will take a certain percentage of pixels (say 1 in 4) and overwrite the complementary percentage of nearest neighbors (3 in our example) with exact copies of itself. In a flattened image (no layer data), such as a jpg, the other 75% of the pixels, which I believe is 50% of the resolution, is lost forever.
pulykamell
10-18-2007, 04:25 PM
If they're blurred, they're probably safe - this guy did a spiral distortion that is easily reversed by just doing a spiral distortion the other direction.
Yes. To prove how easy it was, I just took the photo into Photoshop, made a selection that centered around the middle of the spiral, and did Filter > Twirl > -999 and got the same picture as Interpol did.
Now, why the hell somebody covering his identity would do that instead of pasting a black square on top of their face and flattening the layer, I will never understand.
PunditLisa
10-18-2007, 04:35 PM
Now, why the hell somebody covering his identity would do that instead of pasting a black square on top of their face and flattening the layer, I will never understand.
Because he didn't realize it could be unswirled.
Wee Bairn
10-18-2007, 04:45 PM
Or that somebody else out there might look like his twin brother.... :dubious:
Touche :)
OneCentStamp
10-18-2007, 04:48 PM
Or that somebody else out there might look like his twin brother.... :dubious:Oh, dude. Can you imagine if you looked a lot like that guy, and it wasn't you? :eek: :eek: :eek:
I mean, he's a pretty average looking (skinny, brown haired) guy, and the unswirled picture is slightly distorted...there are probably thousands of people who could be mistaken for him. That would be awful.
pulykamell
10-18-2007, 05:42 PM
Because he didn't realize it could be unswirled.
Obviously.
But maybe it's because I'm a visual person that it looks pretty obvious that there's at least a chance of it being unswirled. I mean, just why the hell choose a swirl filter in the first place? It seems like such an odd, random choice for blocking one's identity. Why get all cute and Photoshoppy about it? I mean, heck, obviously this guy has no brains at all, but you could look at the photo and see that there's a hell of a lot of original data left in the swirl. All the guy has to do to see if his swirl filter is reversible is just run another swirl in the opposite direction on it, while he's manipulating it in Photohsop. And, guess what, it is.
Mangetout
10-18-2007, 06:11 PM
I guess if this was CSI, it would be because he subconsciously wanted to get himself caught, but since it's not, maybe we don't need to jump to that particular trite conclusion.
friedo
10-19-2007, 12:12 AM
Arrested (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7052065.stm). I am shocked (shocked!) that he was found in Thailand of all places.
Go Interpol.
Argent Towers
10-19-2007, 12:25 AM
That guy is so generic looking it's ridiculous. I'm glad they caught him before someone who looked like him got killed by a vigilante or something.
Paul in Qatar
10-19-2007, 03:30 AM
I had an English teacher who looked just like Carlos the Jackal.
You can imagine how I feel. Every time they arrest a pervert he is an overseas English teacher. Wonderful. I tell people I am a prostitute, just avoid the stigma of being an English teacher.
Martiju
10-19-2007, 05:07 AM
Or that somebody else out there might look like his twin brother.... :dubious:
Or that someone has a similar name, or looks similar, or is a paediatrician....don't underestimate the stupidity of mob rule.
And even that's ignoring the moral issue of whether justice should be seen to be done by the state (any state) rather than by any random group of thugs, regardless of their good intentions.
[ETA: hadn't noticed the page 2 - but I guess now I'm just reinforcing the point!)
:)
GuanoLad
10-19-2007, 06:38 AM
I mean, just why the hell choose a swirl filter in the first place?
Why have pictures taken of yourself doing illegal things, at all? The same naive thinking that made him take pics of it in the first place follow through with his naive method of distortion - he thought the risks were low.
Arrested (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7052065.stm). I am shocked (shocked!) that he was found in Thailand of all places.
Go Interpol.
Huh, I didnīt hear the news... well maybe I heard but my thai is more mangled than Bruce Willies at the end of a movie so I didnīt notice.
Nothing exeptionally strange about him... scratch... that being here and his educational career. If you are fond of kids (gah!) what better position (insert puke smiley) than being someone in charge of them.
And you wouldnīt believe the things you can do with a little bribe around here, for the filming of an ad I worked on the director congratiated himself with the traffic police and stopped the traffic on a busy bridge for 5 hours.
Monty
10-19-2007, 06:47 AM
It doesn't require looking the dude for some vigilante here to start whaling on you. All it takes is looking foreign. On top of that, we're soon entering election season. It's always convenient for South Korean politicians to start playing the blame the foreigner game. It resonates quite well with a good portion of the electorate. Add to that the complete lack of enforcement of the constitutional provision against discrimination, you get a wonderful situation in certain areas. Also it doesn't help matters when a few foreign teachers this year have been arrested for various charges including degree forgery and drug use/trafficking.
Now it's time for me to insert my usual remark on "hot topic" threads: The calls for vigilantism are wrong. They do not show the best part of the characters of those calling for such.
Derleth
10-20-2007, 08:19 AM
Stupid pedo! Trix are for kids!
And I'm not the only one who's been thinking that the past few days. I just can't hold it back any longer. So there!
Monty
10-20-2007, 08:48 AM
Stupid pedo! Trix are for kids!
And I'm not the only one who's been thinking that the past few days. I just can't hold it back any longer. So there!
That's so wrong, given that he's under arrest for being involved in child prostitution.
But, yes, I did laugh. Gallows humor, I guess.
Siam Sam
10-01-2012, 09:19 PM
An update on the Swirly Face pedophile (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-pedophile-homeward-bound-after-thai-prison-term-arrested-at-vancouver-airport/article4577486/).
He's been released and was arrested by Canadian authorities last Friday night upon arrival in Vancouver. Looks like he'll be dealt with now by his home people. You guys can keep him please.
PatriotGrrrl
10-01-2012, 10:54 PM
Or that someone has a similar name, or looks similar, or is a paediatrician....don't underestimate the stupidity of mob rule.
How'd you like to be named Gerry Sandusky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Sandusky) and work in the football industry! :eek:
BTW, agree somewhat with SCSimmons, really, MOST criminals (*notable exception: some terrorist groups) do try to avoid recording actual evidence. The difference with a certain subset of the child preds, is that on top of the compulsion, there is apparently some sort of weird sense of "giving back to the community" :rolleyes: at work.
The reason they "give back to the community" isn't that weird. There's not a lot of it out there due to it being illegal. The only people they can child porn from is either their own use (which is really dangerous) or from other pedos (which is less dangerous.) For the latter to work, there must be people who give out that porn. It makes sense that their community would reward those who give them their child porn fix.
It even happens for a fetish much more common and not illegal or despised: foot fetishes. There's actually a website out there where a guy encourages people to upload celebrity feet pics; they are hard to find, since no one taking the picture or using it in an article thinks anything of the feet. It's thus difficult to find, so people naturally pool their resources, as it's mutually beneficial to all involved.
You can even see it in non-fetish related activities: bittorent rewards people who seed (i.e. upload) as much as they download by making the downloads faster for them.
Sure, pedophilia is fucked up and includes compulsions that seem odd, but the desire to share is rather natural.
If they're blurred, they're probably safe - this guy did a spiral distortion that is easily reversed by just doing a spiral distortion the other direction.
And the proper punishment to fit the crime: A swirly.
Bryan Ekers
10-02-2012, 12:11 PM
I'm sure he got plenty of those... in prison!
Rhythmdvl
10-02-2012, 01:20 PM
It even happens for a fetish much more common and not illegal or despised: foot fetishes. There's actually a website out there where a guy encourages people to upload celebrity feet pics; they are hard to find, since no one taking the picture or using it in an article thinks anything of the feet.
You'd think Quentin Tarantino wouldn't have such problems.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.