> but using that to extort money is probably not that legal.<p>It's all in how it's worded. If someone creates a website that lists the names and shows the faces of convicted drunk drivers for example, the creator can justify it as a public service, using public records as its source of information. And the creator can agree to remove a listing for a fee, as long as he doesn't explicitly say that a payment is required to effect the removal of a particular article -- that would be extortion, illegal nearly everywhere.<p>But there's more. If the website's location is unknown, or if it's sited in a place with a flexible attitude toward law and order, then the prohibition against extortion may essentially go away.<p>Some of the U.S.-based extortion sites are being threatened with lawsuits, but on shaky legal grounds:<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/mugshot-removal-extortion/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/mugshot-removal-ext...</a><p>Quote: "“First of all, I think [plaintiff attorney] Scott has insurmountable problems with the First Amendment. The mugshots, as you may or may not know, are public record,” said Lance Winchester, a Texas attorney for BustedMugshots.com and MugshotsOnline.com, which charge under $100 to remove mugs from their sites."