Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Controversy Erupts Over Craigslist Prank

Posted by Zonk on Mon Sep 11, 2006 03:23 AM
from the only-half-funny dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention something of an ongoing controversy over a recent Craigslist prank. Waxy.org has the full details: "On Monday, a Seattle web developer named Jason Fortuny started his own Craigslist experiment. The goal: 'Posing as a submissive woman looking for an aggressive dom, how many responses can we get in 24 hours?' He took the text and photo from a sexually explicit ad in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in ... '178 responses, with 145 photos of men in various states of undress. Responses include full e-mail addresses (both personal and business addresses), names, and in some cases IM screen names and telephone numbers.' In a staggering move, he then published every single response, unedited and uncensored, with all photos and personal information to Encyclopedia Dramatica." The Wired blog 27B Stroke 6 has analysis of the prank, which author Ryan Singel views as 'sociopathic'. He then follows that up with responses to comments from his analysis, with further exploration of the weighty issues this juvenile prank has brought up.
privacy asshole porn humor cooch yro internet story

Related Stories

[+] Craigslist Fair Housing Act Suit Dismissed 162 comments
tigersaw writes, "A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed the suit against Craigslist brought by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which accused the site of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by not actively filtering out housing advertisements that include discriminatory language. Craigslist cited their community-based flagging system as an already effective means of limiting such posts. However, the court held that the site was nonetheless protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields Web forums from liability for ads and opinions posted by their users."
[+] News: $74k Judgment Against Craigslist Prankster 182 comments
jamie points out an update in the case of Jason Fortuny, the Craigslist prankster who was sued last year for publicly posting responses to a fake personal ad. The Citizen Media Law Project's summary of his case now includes a recently entered default judgment (PDF), fining Fortuny "... in the amount of $35,001.00 in statutory damages for Count I, violation of the Copyright Act; $5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion." He has also been ordered to pay more than $34,000 in attorney and court fees.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday September 11 2006, @03:25AM (#16079329)
    I stole the picture I sent from another site! Ha Ha!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2006, @03:30AM (#16079337)
    "Send me a picture of your cock -- I'll suck the best one - w4m" got about 22 replies that made me very, very sad about Gmail autodisplaying images, and very, very sad that I was on the particular mailing list used to post the ad.
  • by Flying pig (925874) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:32AM (#16079342)
    The risks they are taking with this kind of behavior: I mean the respondents, of course. It seems a lot of people still do not understand how the Internet works; for instance, when people post personal details to blogs and then are surprised that other people read them, as if they thought only "suitable" people would somehow have access. The more people understand that giving away personal information in an insecure environment is actually deeply stupid, the better for us all in the long term.

    Prank yes, sociopathic possibly, may get some people to think a bit more before giving away potentially embarrassing or expensive data, priceless.

    • by mano_k (588614) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:41AM (#16079368) Homepage

      They did not understand how the internet works?
      They did not publish their personal information on some website, they sent it to someone who had published an ad in a suitable forum! This has nothing to do with "how the internet works" but is all about "how people work"!

      Of course I would not send my real name, official email-address and such in response to an ad, but this has nothing to do with me being a nerd, but with knowing that there are truly stupid people out there.

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:24AM (#16079475)
        Excuse me, but sending very private information to someone you don't have the foggiest clue about pretty much means you don't know how the 'net works.

        It's funny how many people will even respond to fraudulent requests to surrender information to "da man", thinking that everyone pisses their pants before even considering imposing as federal agents, not thinking that it could be kinda hard to execute federal US law against someone located in a country ending in -stan.

        Then again, considering the anti-spam, anti-fraud, anti-bad-thing-done-through-the-internet laws passed recently, neither do politicians have a clue how it works...
    • by Tim C (15259) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:46AM (#16079381)
      I agree with you to an extent, but this is not the same as people expecting blog postings to magically only be visible to the intended audience. This is people responding to an invitation to contact someone who is making that invitation under false pretences. There is absolutely no difference between this, and someone placing a personal ad in a newspaper, then publishing the responses in that paper (other than that this costs the guy nothing).

      I agree that there should be no expectation of privacy regarding information that is published on the web. However, this was *not* published on the web, and I think there is an implied expectation of privacy regarding personal communications (eaves-droppers notwithstanding).

      You're right, in that some of these people were perhaps a little foolish to supply personal contact details quite so readily, but that doesn't excuse the guy who did this. I'm certainly not a psychologist, but this guy pretty much fits my personal, layman's definition of sociopath, as he clearly has zero empathy or respect for the people he did this to.
    • by CortoMaltese (828267) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:36AM (#16079509)
      It certainly is time for people to understand.

      You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say on the Internet can and will be used against you. You have the right to speak to an attorney, but he can't help you take back what you said on the Internet. Nobody can.

      • by Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:43AM (#16079523) Homepage

        FTFA:

        September 10: Jason Fortuny modified his homepage to remove all references to his professional life: portfolio, resume, and references to past clients are all gone. (Compare to the older versions on the Internet Archive.) It also looks like he's been scrubbing his personal contact information from his Livejournal comments and homepage. For example, this link from my post originally went to a comment with his contact information, but it's been removed entirely. (Strangely, he didn't remove his home address and phone number from this entry.)

        Bwaahahah, nice one Ferris. Pwn3d.

  • Legal Implications? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alicat1194 (970019) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:34AM (#16079347)
    Wouldn't this be some sort of breach of contract or communication? Since the guys who replied believed they were responding to an individual, and thus most likely consider it a private communication, would they be able to take legal action?
    • by rm999 (775449) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:12AM (#16079443)
      from tfa:

      "But was any law actually broken? Fortuny obviously misrepresented himself under false pretenses, which is itself possibly actionable, but the privacy implications beyond that are very interesting. Does emailing someone your personal information act as an implicit waiver of your right to privacy? I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, no.

      If taken to court, he's at risk of two primary civil claims. "Intentional infliction of emotional distress," while notoriously hard to prove in court, is certainly easier here based on his own writings. The second, more relevant claim, is "public disclosure of private facts." This Findlaw article on the Washingtonienne scandal sums it up nicely:

              The disclosure must be public. The facts must be private. The plaintiff must be identified. The publication must be "highly offensive." And there must be an "absence of legitimate concern to the public" with respect to the publication.

      It certainly seems like this clearly fits the criteria for a tort claim, but I'd love to hear some legal interpretation from the law bloggers out there. Does volunteering your information in a private context somehow invalidate your privacy rights? I don't think so. (For more information, see the EFF's Bloggers' FAQ on Privacy.)"
  • Responses (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2006, @03:35AM (#16079351)
    RFJason_CL_Experiment [encycloped...matica.com]
  • by identity0 (77976) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:41AM (#16079366) Journal
    With all the talk about "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide from the government", it's only natural that people will start to snoop on each other. After all, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have no reason to hide it, right?

    It seems like the Transparent Society [davidbrin.com] is coming closer all the time. I'm not sure it's a good thing, though.

    On the other hand, I'm suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before. Outing a few dozen gay men would make them hesitant to associate, and it's not like fundamentalist churches don't have lots of money and members with free time... Maybe they're afraid some of their own would be caught or something.
  • by svunt (916464) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:50AM (#16079388) Homepage Journal
    I once had a friend on IRC ask me to read a piece of erotic fiction she'd read and provide feedback. No problem, she links me to the story, which is at an erotic literature website, which requires me to register. Little did I know that a list of their users was online, and it only took a week until my name in Google yielded its first ever result, linking me to shitty home-made wank stories. The point is, you get burned, you learn your lesson. I just feel sorry for these poor saps who didn't learn their lesson in a lower-impact fashion. Regarding the guy who did this: There's clever, and there's easy. Guess which your joke is, cocksmoker?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2006, @04:36AM (#16079510)
      I learnt this lesson and stated to be careful around 10 (or more) years ago.

      I came across a link to a website that said something like 'click here for hot chicks'. Of course I clicked on it and the front page asked me to enter my name and email address to see hot chicks. There wasn't a big problem with spam back then and porn was still mostly confined to alt.binaries.sex, so I entered my details in out of curiosity (of course).

      The next thing I know, a picture of chicks (as in baby chicken) comes up with a message saying something like "Hope you enjoy these pictures of hot chicks. Here is the list of others that share your passion for poultry", followed by my personal details and a list of personal details of other people.

      I've been careful with my details ever since.
  • by IICV (652597) on Monday September 11 2006, @03:52AM (#16079393)
    I really can't make up my opinion on this case, probably because it's 12:30 am here. Anyway, on the one hand, the people who responded to this with any information that's directly traceable to them are morons, and doubly so for the ones who were stupid enough to use their friggin' work e-mail. I mean, come on! Everyone likes a bit of the old misuse of company resources now and then, but asking for sex with your work address? It's probably a good thing your genes won't spread far.

    On the other hand, though, publishing their information in a public place isn't quite kosher. Although we all know that sending someone a plaintext e-mail is almost as bad as shouting from the rooftops should anyone actually want to intercept the message, it's not quite as bad as posting pictures of your stoned self on MySpace and expecting nobody to ever find it. There is at least a little bit of expectation that this is a private sort of thing; I would be a lot happier with him if he'd just quietly notified the people who replied that they'd been scammed, and only published the details of those who became abusive.

    One thing I don't really care about is the way the 27B-6 guy is complaining about marriages being destroyed because of this. It really makes no sense; if the guy is responding to ads online and his wife doesn't know about it, there's probably something deeply troubled in the marriage and it's likely to go to divorce soon anyway. Similarly with the public lynching argument: if you are so uncomfortable with your tastes that you wouldn't like to publicize them, why are you even taking the risk of replying to something on Craig's List? Yes, this is likely to be the first time such a stunt has been publicized, but still - you'd expect people would rather keep their activities a secret to take some reasonable precautions. Like not using their damn work e-mail.

    Which actually brings up an interesting point! How many times has this stunt been pulled on Craig's List, only instead of being put on some stupid Wiki, those who responded with useful information just got blackmailed? How much would you pay so that your wife doesn't find out about your animal bondage fetish?

  • by AaronLawrence (600990) * on Monday September 11 2006, @04:13AM (#16079447)
    Whether or not it is illegal or ethical, some of those guys are going to want to damage him any way they can. If he's lucky, none of them will lose their jobs or marriages.

    Secondly, it's alarming to see the division in the responders: a HUGE percentage who think that it's OK or even cool, for various reasons. These people are themselves somewhat sociopathic. Some of them are obviously kids, but others are not, and those are scary.

    "They were married" - well, a few of them were. What about the other 150?
    "These guys are cruising for sex" - not a crime. Not even morally wrong for many people.
    "They used work addresses" - only a few of them.
    "They responded to a public posting" - but by private email.
    "Email is not private" - but you still can't post other people's private information in public without their permission. Yes, there really are laws about that. No, the "internet" doesn't make it different. Yes, there are ethical and social reasons as well.

  • I hate this guy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rm999 (775449) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:18AM (#16079460)
    I really hate this guy. I don't know much about him, but I hope he spends some time in jail. I feel this way after reading about this guy who contacted him:

    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RFJ ason_CL_Experiment [encycloped...matica.com]
    search for Part I: Email conversation with Jerry
    also look at parts ii and iii

    He has no empathy, and he is clearly trying to humiliate these people. Given the large number of people he angered (whose lives may be ruined because of it) and his very public profile, I am guessing he is going to have to go into hiding soon. In addition to a lack of empathy, he has a lack of common sense.
    • Re:I hate this guy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rm999 (775449) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:22AM (#16079469)
      In case it's taken down:

      The Saga of Jerry and "Wife"

      * Official thread

      Jerry has already contacted me by e-mail, demanding I remove all traces of him from my post. This appears to be an anonymous reply from him in my LJ: http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410835.html?thread= 7629011#t7629011 [livejournal.com]

      Jerry claims he has an open marriage. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

      Edit: Update. Jerry and his "wife" contacted me on AIM
      Part I: Email conversation with Jerry

      From Jerry@emailaddress.com
      > You will remove the pictures of me from your stupid craigslist experiment.
      > My wife and I have an open relationship, don\'t believe me? Contact her and
      > ask her. But you will remove me, you have no right to post this kind of crap
      > without first knowing the full details. Here is the bullshit i want you to
      > remove: http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410835.html?thread= 7600851..t7600851 [livejournal.com]

      From Jason
      Why should I?

      From Jerry@emailaddress.com
      Because I would appreciate it, because my wife and I have an open relationship
      and I would never "cheat" on her. Because we play with others to enhance our
      own relationship. Because she is fully aware of what goes on. And again
      because I'd appreciate it.
      I don't want to fight this out with you, I understand why you're doing
      this - to husbands that actually cheat, however, I wouldn't do that - my wife
      and I are fully participating swingers, now please remove the thread.

      From Jason
      Well, if anything, this should help you meet MORE people.

      From Jerry@emailaddress.com
      And it's not the way I want it done. So you have no intentions of removing it
      then? That's fine, I'll ignore it and move on with my life.

      From Jason
      Wait, I thought you were going to sue me?

      From Jerry@emailaddress.com
      I'll look into all my options, and if I choose legal recourse, it
      wouldn't be a
      lawsuit. It would be a criminal case, if that didn't work, then I imagine I'd
      have to settle for a civil suit. But either way, this is the last time I
      communicate with you. I have nothing more to say - by even responding in the
      first place I gave you what you want, and that was foolish of me.

      Part II: IM Conversation with Jerry

      [10:29] JrITadmin69: Just the man I was looking for.
      [10:30] RFJason: Hi Jerry. I just replied to your e-mail.
      [10:30] JrITadmin69: and i replied to yours
      [10:30] JrITadmin69: Look, I understand what you're trying to do with your experiment.
      [10:31] JrITadmin69: And I don't take offense, other then that you didn't attempt to get the whole story, and jumped to conclusions.
      [10:31] RFJason: I didn't jump to any conclusions.
      [10:31] JrITadmin69: And I learned my lesson as well, don't include my face anymore, assuming my wife and i decide to continue with our lifestyle.
      [10:31] JrITadmin69: Sure you did, you assumed I was cheating on my
  • FYI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheLink (130905) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:31AM (#16079496) Journal
    He used to say in his website: http://web.archive.org/web/20050211124330/rfjason. com/contact/
    Privacy Policy:
    You are sending me direct contact information that is sensitive. I protect your privacy in the following ways:
    (1) I will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever;
    (2) I will never send you any unrequested e-mail, besides e-mail in the regular course of business; and
    (3) Your information is stored behind network address translation and a software firewall.

    But now he doesn't. ;)
  • by file-exists-p (681756) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:34AM (#16079504) Homepage

    In his responses, the guy is arguing with a kind of rethoric that completely ignores the importance of social image, social relations, and more globally social existence. Because those concepts are alien to him, he can not grasp how much harm he has caused.

    Hopefully he will be sued. Maybe he will still do not understand what he did wrong, but he at least will understand that he did something wrong that he should not do again.

  • by MrPerfekt (414248) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:38AM (#16079512) Homepage Journal
    At first, I was on the side of the guy that posted all the info. "It's their fault they gave their information out before knowing who they were giving it to.", I thought. Then I realized that despite how bizarre and fucked up I may find the S&M fetish, there are probably a thing or two I like that'd gross out other people and would I like that information broadcast? Probably not.

    This also brings up a good point about meeting people with particular "interests" online. Say I like feet. I don't. But say I did and I want to find people with the same interest as mine. The Internet is probably where I'd turn. It's not like you can go to Starbucks and start randomly asking people. Now, this guy finds foot fetishes objectionable and outs me. I'm not doing anything illegal but I'm sure my employer would look differently at me for knowing despite having an obligation to not do that. It's all about impressions and what you know about someone. You can't forget something like that. That's why people keep those things to themselves.

    So long story, short. I read what this guy posted. I read what the submissions were. I read how this guy is acting after the fact. He's his own moral sheriff apparently. Which is pretty lame considering there's alot of terrorists running about out there doing the same thing only instead of humiliation, they prefer death. So, it all goes back to: yes, you have a right to do something (and in this case, maybe not even then) but that doesn't mean you _should_ do it.

    What I think about what these people like to say to their sexual partners is irrelevant and it should be irrelevant to you to. If you feel otherwise, then you're just trying to play an authority figure and "stick it" to these people.

    Treat people like you'd want to be treated. This guy is just a douche bag.
  • Missing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Omestes (471991) <omestes@FREEBSDgmail.com minus bsd> on Monday September 11 2006, @04:42AM (#16079521) Homepage Journal
    Odd thing, the full Encyclopeida Dramatica [encycloped...matica.com] site is down, and even more strange is that the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for it is deleted and protected, along with the talk page, and there is no explanation, it has been down since august. Does anyone have any idea why this is?

    Did it get slashdotted, or purposely removed? Also whats up with the Wikipedia page. I would like to at least know what the Encyclopedia Dramatica is, the only source I could really find was from Urban Dictionary, which really isn't the best source of anything.
    • Perfect IIED case (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2006, @03:55AM (#16079405)
      This is an example of the very rare Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress case that can actually win.

      Depends on the jury, but this guy is absolutely liable.

      Not for libel (I don't even know why people would suggest that).

      I'd say IANAL, but I am.
      • by legoburner (702695) on Monday September 11 2006, @04:28AM (#16079487) Homepage Journal
        Yes, as good an idea as he thought it was, any company that ever googles his name now will instantly see pages associated with sex-related pranks, and see pages and pages of controversy and arguments. I read in one place that a couple of marriages are breaking apart because of his actions*, and he has been anything but anonymous in his 'prank' (his full address was available along with phone number and name on his site when he first did this and it has been reposted in quite a few places), so one wonders what will come either legally or illegally of him as a result of this.

        *Though they would probably have broken apart anyway as nobody can hide this sort of thing forever.