Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>




Craig R. Brittain

Verified account
Craig R. BrittainVerified account

He has many followers. My cousin Cat just spoke to him over Twitter. She said he sounded okay but I think otherwise. I don’t like the dude especially after reading these following articles about him. So if you encounter him and he follows you please know he’s fucked up in the head.


Craig R. Brittain CEO of Dryvving Goes Crazy and Threatens Muslims

Craig Brittain

Craig Brittain, perhaps one of the worst people in the United States, with a history of creating revenge porn websites has been at it again. The guy claiming to be the CEO of Dryvving, seems to have an serious issue with Muslims and has been sending them death threats during episodes of rage and anger.

In a letter sent, he claims among other things that President Obama planned the attacks in Orlando, and that he is in business to try to abolish the US Government.

He’s already been in a lot hot water for randomly approaching people for investment in his newest “venture” and then threatening them when they refuse to invest. According to BusinessInsider, he has been going on fits of rage about the fact no one wants to give this guy money, and then goes and threatens them.

He claims in the article that he is a different person, but this email sent shows a person with some serious mental instability. They also point that besides being an abhorrent racist, he has an extreme hatred for women and frequently attacks females online and harasses them.

Worse, the person he sent to is Jewish, not Muslim.

source: Forbes

Craig Brittain: Confessions Of An ‘Accidental’ Revenge Porn Pusher

I cover crime, privacy and security in digital and physical forms.

“The thing to recognize is that the adult industry’s new respectability creates a paradox. The more acceptable in modern culture it becomes, the farther porn will have to go in order to preserve the sense of unacceptability that’s so essential to its appeal. As should be evident, the industry’s already gone pretty far; and with reenacted child abuse and barely disguised gang rapes now selling briskly, it is not hard to see where porn is eventually going to have to go in order to retain its edge of disrepute. Whether or not it ever actually gets there, it’s clear that the real horizon late-‘90s porn is heading toward is the Snuff Film.”

This was what David Foster Wallace wrote back in 1998. If he were still alive, it’d be interesting to hear what he’d have to say about how people get their kicks today. Would he have been surprised by the rise of revenge porn websites? Probably not. It almost felt inevitable, given the trajectory of the legitimised pornographic industry into darker realms.

Revenge porn, where nude or revealing images of people are published on websites and their personal information posted alongside all without the victim’s knowledge or consent, has widely been condemned as an awful manifestation of a porn-obsessed culture. Just this week, many cheered as Kevin Bollaert, who ran the revenge porn site, was convicted of identity theft and extortion. He also ran which charged people to have their photos removed. Just a year ago, the notorious Hunter Moore, who ran the infamous website, which had a similar modus operandi to Bollaert’s service, was handed his sentence. He served just two days in prison, but a lot of money has been spent on securing his freedom.

At the end of January, the Federal Trade Commission said it had reached a settlement with Craig Brittain, who owns the website, which stopped spreading revenge porn images in April 2013. The FTC alleged that “he used deception to acquire and post intimate images of women”, which would then be posted on the site, often alongside their address, phone number and Facebook profile. Again, he’d ask for hundreds of dollars from victims demanding photos of them were removed, according to the regulator. Brittain would also offer a reward of at least $100 in exchange for pictures and supplementary information, the complaint claimed. His punishment was light: a ban from posting images of people nude without their consent and an agreement to delete all the awful material he was alleged to have published.

Craig Brittain – still the owner of, deemed by the FTC to be a revenge porn site

Shortly after the decision, Brittain posted a protracted “apology” on his site. In my email conversations with Brittain, he seemed somewhat contrite but was defensive, claiming he didn’t even mean for to become the awful thing it became; it was supposed to be a parody. “The entire initial design of the website reflected a parody tone.  The website didn’t actually become a ‘thing’ until around the time IAU [Is Anyone Up] closed in April 2012.” But then he seems to contradict himself when answering a question on the name, clearly a play on Hunter Moore’s creation. “The name was chosen to tap into the existing market. We had a similar overall format and demographics going in (these rapidly changed as we developed an older, more literate demographic than the one IAU had).”

And then there’s the image of the website’s homepage from January 2012, courtesy of the Wayback Machine, which doesn’t exactly look parodic: homepage January 2012

The jury is out on the parody claim, but certainly not looking favourably on Brittain.

Brittain says he only “let a small amount of content that actually was ‘revenge porn’ be posted – actual ‘RP’ content is the least valuable, most worthless content on the internet”. The FTC said Brittain’s site included photos of more than 1,000 individuals, however. Brittain said in his public apology that he completely disagreed with all of the FTC’s complaint and that only around 50 postings could be classified as revenge porn. He believes his site was the “legal equivalent” of social sites like Facebook or blog platforms like Tumblr – he was not to blame for what users published. Get the feeling he isn’t entirely sorry?

Another sign that Brittain isn’t totally contrite: a cursory look on DomainTools at the state of the site indicated Brittain is still trying to profit from, with apparent plans to sell it with an asking price of $10,000. He doesn’t answer my questions on this directly, only noting he listed it “a long time ago” and hadn’t received any offers.

He claimed to be “working right now to create useful and beneficial things for society” and hopes to use the domain for anti-revenge porn content, though that dream remains unrealised. Instead, Brittain has taken to attacking media. Unsurprisingly, he’s part of the GamerGate brigade demanding media reform for their approach to diversity in the games industry, hence his @AuditTheMedia Twitter handle. Brittain is now going on the offensive against any sites he believes shame people to get hits. “I’m personally opposed at this point in my life to every sort of website that uses ‘shame’ or ‘revenge’ tactics to guilt someone or manufacture outrage to promote their own website. This includes everything from Cheaterville [a site that tries to shame adulterers owned by James McGibney] to big mainstream websites like The Verge and BuzzFeed shaming Dr. Matt Taylor [a NASA scientist who wore a shirt with cartoon images of nude women].

“I’m less concerned about the indie websites and more concerned about how the big, sponsored websites [that] are spending investor contributions. That’s not to say that ‘revenge’ or ‘shame’ media aren’t bad regardless of size, but there’s VC money being dumped into new media projects with questionable ethics and a list of the usual suspects on their payroll.”

Many revenge porn disseminators, including Brittain, don’t believe there should be legal limits placed on revenge porn. Though regulators and law enforcement would disagree with them, these purveryors of exploitative material claim that posting other people’s images and information should be a constitutional right. “Making things that we are morally opposed to illegal (solely on moral grounds) perpetuates a greater theft from society. Laws are not free and legislators have a fixed amount of time. Millions or potentially even billions of dollars would be spent in this instance, creating more pages of an already bloated legal code. When society makes laws based on morals rather than logistics, the inevitable fallout becomes worse than the initial problem,” Brittain added.

“Ironically enough, in a completely deregulated free market, the demand for things like ‘revenge porn’ is near zero. Less regulations = quality of life goes up = less desire for negative things in the first place = economy goes up as well… Switzerland doesn’t have a ‘revenge porn’ problem. In fact, the majority of their citizens have very limited internet privacy concerns because their bosses and government officials aren’t spying on them, there’s no ‘moral panic’ over hiring in Switzerland.” He neglected to mention Switzerland’s strong belief in privacy as a fundamental right, which Is Anybody Down hardly respected.

It’s a similar line of thought to that held by nachash, who ran the Tor-based Doxbin site, where people’s private information would be posted, never to be removed. He also hosted a mirror of PinkMeth, a revenge porn site taken down during Operation Anonymous, a global law enforcement action that seized a swathe of dark web sites. Though he disagreed with many of the “doxes” placed on the site, he didn’t believe the information should be deleted just because of his own personal feelings.

Such arguments do, admittedly, uncloak a prodigious elephant in the room: as Foster Wallace noted, pornogaphy needs to be prohibited or socially condemned in some uncodified way for it to be exciting. If such sites are banned in supposedly liberal nations like the US and the UK, does turning them into a taboo make them more appealing? Is criminalising revenge porn sites an affront to freedom of speech, even where people’s privacy is at stake? But if we let these sites thrive, give them legitimacy, won’t that make them less appealing and lead to even more exploitative forms of “pornography” (a word that doesn’t feel acceptable for what’s a horrific form of sexual gratification)?

It seems like an intractable problem, where the lesser of two evils has to be determined. As with every form of “freedom”, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

There are already websites that take the idea of revenge porn and take it to the most violent extremes. One of the easiest to find resides both on the dark web, accessible only via the anonymising Tor network, and the “clearnet” used by most internet denizens: Dark Scandals. On the Hidden Wiki, a directory for Tor-based hidden services and the starting point for most on the journey into the deep web, Dark Scandals offers “Site with Real Rape, Blackmail and Forced videos”. Screenshots from the site show its terse description to be accurate.

The concern here is that revenge porn sites flock to the dark web, where removal of hidden services remains an onerous task for law enforcement, as indicated by the tussle over Doxbin, which went up and down after Operation Anonymous. Even on the clearweb, website lookups using the likes of DomainTools return anonymous details, thanks to services that cloak the real identities of site owners. For those who can’t afford those services, it’s easy to use fake names and contact details.

So, another elephant: does the right to privacy exten

source: Business Insider

A screenshot of Craig Brittain from CBS4.YouTube/CBS4

Craig Brittain, the controversial founder of now defunct revenge-porn website IsAnybodyDown?, is back with a new venture: an Uber competitor called Dryvyng.

And Brittain is already raising eyebrows.

On Monday afternoon, developer and security researcher Asher Langton tweeted out screenshotsof emails sent to him from one of his Twitter followers.

This follower had, it appears, reached out to Brittain, presumably about potentially investing in Dryvyng. Brittain apparently responded to the person with a screed that sounds straight out of an episode of the HBO parody “Silicon Valley.”

Here’s part of the first message:

“If you don’t invest, it’s probably because you have no real money to invest and/or you work for a competitor. As an extremely talented company with an incredible idea, our worthless, idiotic competitors are doing everything they can to sabotage our genius. Likewise, anyone who won’t invest in us is a f—— idiot. I hope you get a terminal illness. Rot in hell, Ben.”

More screenshots of Brittain’s emails can be found here. They include obscenity-laced rants against “socialist economics,” Democratic voters, and government regulation.

“The fastest solution to regulatory interference is open defiance,” reads one portion.

Brittain has responded on Twitter to the discussion about the screenshots, saying he doesn’t feel sorry about calling out “fake investors, competitor agents of limousine liberal socialists.”

Dryvyng seems to be an Uber competitor, marketing itself as a fast, affordable, safe way to hail a ride and get to where you’re going. According to Dryvyng’s Twitter account, it has investors and is announcing a new round of funding soon.

The company claims to have 35,000 people signed up and pre-qualified to drive before it has even launched. Dryvyng accepts cryptocurrency and the pricing model is a negotiation between the driver and the rider, according to Dryvyng’s own Twitter account, which has been tweeting out people’s responses to the screenshots in addition to tweeting about “SJWs,” short for “social justice warriors,” a derisive term used by some individuals to describe progressives and feminists.

Prior to Dryvyng, Brittain was, infamously, the founder of IsAnybodyDown?, a website that posted hundreds of nude photos of women. After reaching a settlement with the FTC earlier this year, Brittain apologized on his blog for “a series of poor decisions” and says he’s “a different person now.”

We’ve reached out to Dryvyng for comment and will update this story when we hear back.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Owner Craig Brittain
Slogan(s) Submit Social Nudes Anonymously
Website [1]
Alexa rank 160,744 (June 2013)[2]
Commercial no
Launched December 1, 2011
Current status Defunct
closed April 4, 2013

Is Anybody Down? was a controversial revenge porn website founded by Craig Brittain and Chance Trahan where users could anonymously upload nude photographs along with information identifying the person in the photograph (including full names, addresses, phone numbers, and Facebook screenshots).[3][4] The site also contained a section of nude photographs titled “Anonymous Bounty”, where users were offered “free stuff” if they could provide the Facebook or Twitter information of any of the people pictured. In concept, the website recapitulated the now-defunct Is Anyone Up?, which was shut down in April 2012, shortly before an FBI investigation into the propriety of the site.[5]


The activities of the website and the operators were investigated by the United States Federal Trade Commission, who stated that when people contacted the website, the site did not respond to their requests to remove the information. The FTC stated in their administrative complaint that the site advertised content removal services under the name “Takedown Hammer” and “Takedown Lawyer” that could delete consumers’ images and content from the site in exchange for a payment of $200 to $500. The complaint says the sites for these services were owned and operated by Craig Brittain.[6][7][8] Marc Randazza, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, compiled evidence that the two sites are part of the same operation.[7][9][3] He offered to take the case of anyone whose images were displayed on Is Anybody Down without permission.[7]

Under a settlement announced in January 2015 by the Federal Trade Commission, Brittain agreed to delete all of the site’s content and to not open a new or similar website.[10]The FTC said that Brittain had posted explicit photos and information of over 1,000 people.[11][12] After various news agencies reported on the FTC settlement, Brittain complained that photos of him were being used without his permission and sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take down to Google objecting to 23 articles remaining in their search rankings. He said that the links were examples of “unauthorised use of photos of me and other related information”.[13]

Shutdown of website

On April 4, 2013, Brittain announced via Twitter that “As of today Is Anybody Down is over.”[14] Although Brittain’s tweets were interpreted to mean that the site would be shut down entirely, Brittain transferred the content of the site to a new domain,[15][16] This lasted from April 5 to at least April 15. By June 11, 2013, ObamaNudes redirected to another service called DIYspies, hosted on a Facebook page.[17]

Follow-up venture

In 2015, Brittain and Trahan sought funding for Dryvyng, a ride-accessing system that would compete with Uber and Lyft. Their plans gained attention when their involvement and prior involvement in IsAnybodyDown? was made public.[18]

source: weird internet

Revenge Porn Sleaze Craig Brittain Wants His Past Deleted from Google



Before it was shuttered by the federal government, published naked photos of women without their consent. Now Craig Brittain, the site’s former owner, is demanding that Google erase anything that mentions his history of brazen, mass privacy violation. That’s so cute.

The Bizarre Excuses of a Former Revenge Porn Kingpin

The former proprietor of one of the most notorious revenge porn sites on the web, Is Anybody Down,…

Craig Brittain, former proprietor of stolen nudes site IsAnyoneDown, says that Google lacks his consent and authorization to provide links to his story, and has submitted a DMCA takedown notice:

Unauthorized use of photos of me and other related information. Unauthorized use of statements and identity related information. Unauthorized copying of excerpts from Using photos which are not ‘fair use’.

Yes: Craig Brittain, former proprietor of stolen nudes site IsAnyoneDown, is upset that photos of himself and other embarrassing information can be found on the internet. In particular, he wants these 23 URLs stricken from the Google record, which I will now paste below for your clicking pleasure:


Craig Brittain, revenge porn dynamo turned GamerGate apostle (of course) is shit out of luck here, because as Ars Technica points out, “fair use and general First Amendment principles are on Google’s and the media’s side,” to say nothing of the vast and inexorable cosmic forces of irony. You’d think Craig Brittain, former proprietor of stolen nudes site IsAnyoneDown, who spent so much time exploiting the internet, would have a better understanding of it. But you’ve never had to be very smart to start a website.


This post first appeared on Paula Revere Press, please read the originial post: here

Share the post



Subscribe to Paula Revere Press

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription