Controversy Erupts Over Craigslist Prank

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.

The jokes on you!

I stole the picture I sent from another site! Ha Ha!

Re:The jokes on you!

I stole the picture I sent from another site! Ha Ha!

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Who is being fooled here, exactly? There is certainly the possibility that

1. Mr. Fortuny made up all the responses, to get publicity (which he indeed did).

or

2. Many of the responses were made up by whoever sent them. Just like Mr. Fortuny made up a fake listing for fun, other people may have sent fake responses for fun.

In other words, what verification do we have that the posted information is real? None whatsoever.

Re:Hah! Bet at least 50% are real & 40% are ma

I just married the woman I met on match.com three years ago. She was my 13th first date from match.com, which made it an exhausting but ultimately worthwhile experience. For the first two months I was on match.com, I didn't put up my salary because I didn't want to meet gold-diggers. Didn't quite work as I'd hoped, since match.com used to equate "don't want to say" as "less than $25,000/year". My wife didn't want to date the jobless and specified "at least $25,000/year", so she only found me when I finally went ahead and put my income on my profile.

Some hints. If all you're finding are married men, posers and losers: you're using the wrong dating site and/or you're searching for the wrong criteria.

Hint #1: Craigslist is the wrong site if you are looking for an actual relationship. One-night stand? Line forms to the left. Random sex in parking lots? Right over here, ma'am. Meaningful relationship? I'm sorry, but we're all out at the moment.

Those women who perpetually date players (who then cheat on them) don't seem to be able to distinguish between arrogance and confidence, and seem to put more value on the car than the person (for the overly sensitive: this is an unfair generalization with a large dose of truth). Hint #2: Be different from those women in how you select partners, and you'll be different from them in the relationships you have.

Hint #3: The trick with the photographs is to not put so much value on a photo and instead, value someone who can write a decent profile, respond well in email (articulate, decent spelling and grammar, possibly funny) and meet the guy quickly (but with a low investment). After two or three emails, meet at a coffee shop after work "for a quick cup" and make up your mind in person in 5-20 minutes.

Fundamentally, don't pretend that dating sites are a replacement for the first date. They're a replacement for the club, activity, or job where you might otherwise see someone interesting, but not a whole lot more. All of the other work in meeting someone great is still up to you.

Regards,
Ross

Bait an Obvius Fake. Re:The jokes on you!

You know what's really sick?

The text of the bait post doesn't match the Picture included with it.

The quote: "i don't get fucked in my ass since my hole is tite..........don't even try or think about it."

The girl in that picture, Looks like she has been Analyzed enough to need a diaper. To say nothing of doubts of tightness anywhere when you look like that from behind.

This is not exactly a new trick

"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.

Re:This is not exactly a new trick

"Send me a picture of your cock -- I'll suck the best one - w4m"

I sent a picture of my Golden Retriever.

I sent in a picture of Foghorn Leghorn.

You did it wrong

You're supposed to say you're an extremely wealthy, young medical doctor who is a cross between Brad Pitt and Doogie Hawser who makes $950,000 a year developing cures for third-world orphans. Then you get naked pictures of foolish but beautiful young women instead of lonesome, horny Slashdotters.

It's perhaps time people understood

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.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

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.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

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...

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

I would say that this has nothing to do with the internet. Sending highly private, personal information to someone you've never met, know nothing about and whose identity you can't even be sure of (as in this case!) means you're just an idiot. There's really no way around that one.

People do this through the mail, people do this through email. Hell, con artists have tricked people into doing this since cavemen were banging each other on the heads with clubs. Whatever way it occurs, it's the same thing.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

People tend to be less wary on the 'net, though. When someone comes to your door, telling you he's from your bank to review your account data, would you believe him? If not, then why do so many people believe those mails they (allegedly) get from their bank, telling them to reply IMMEDIATELY with all their secret info or their accounts are closed?

People simply let go all safeguards when going online. Why, I don't know, but they do.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

I would disagree. I can have the same social effect if I were to do this via street fliers stapled to phone poles in the respective neighborhoods.

The internet is different, but the people are the same. You can still meet some real jerks -- just faster and they're harder to spot because it's easier to pose on the internet.

For all you know, I might be a hyper-intelligent shade of blue and not a carbon based life form.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

I sent money to someone I didn't even really meet on the internet. I bought Secret of Mana for the SNES on Ebay. Should he then post my personal information? What if, instead of SoM, I bought a quadruple-headed dildo, complete with ground effects, on Ebay? Is it okay then?

Unfortunately for this dude, and any hypothetical person interested in revealing my hypothetical purchase in a hypothetical sex toy with hypothetical accoutrements, it's against the law. Ditto for the Craig's List advertisement. Whether or not it was stupid for me to buy Secret of Mana from some party I didn't know is completely moot. It would be moot if it were a sex toy or a set of monkey bars (playground equipment) or a new duvet cover. It would be moot if I were answering an advert for a local flag football league or for a roommate. A court would probably throw out a frivolous case of me suing you for exposing my need to cover my down comforter with a duvet cover because the fucking cat sheds all the fuck over it and makes it icky furry. After all, a dude owning a duvet cover, while something to possibly snicker about, is not exactly going to have an actual harmful effect on my life. But god help you if you make it impossible for employment because I engaged in conversation, in good faith, with someone advertising for others in a slave/master relationship. That could keep me from getting a job, and, as exposing that information is illegal for you in the first place, and as it probably just cost me a whole lot of money over the course of my life, just cost *you* a lot of money in lawsuit damages to make up for it.

Personally, I hope this dude gets sued for every last cent these guys lose. And if they can make a case for pain and suffering (not too hard to see, since they may lose their marriages -- i agree that they're scumbags, but, just as it's not legal to kill all jerkface fuckers, being a scumbag doesn't automatically preclude you from protection under the law), then I hope he has to pony that up to. All in all, I hope this guy's life is ruined, just like he ruined theirs.

What's the moral of this story? Don't be an idiot. I think we all agree that many (most?) of those responding to the advertisement were being incredibly stupid. But so was the dude busting their balls. Through multiple acts of idiocy, we're probably going to end up with a whole host of guys who just ruined their lives. I don't think it would be a stretch to say a few could commit suicide after everything collapses in on them. Or at least become raging alcoholics. How is that a benefit to us? It isn't. So in the long run, don't be an idiot. Just as a girl who dresses like a tramp, acts like a tramp, then follows a dude back to his apartment from a club and gets raped is an idiot, so to are the men who replied to this posting. But just as the dude who raped the tramp is a rapist who should be shot - repeatedly - in the face, so should the dude who "outted" these guys get kicked straight up in the balls. And in the wallet, for good measure.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

And if they can make a case for pain and suffering (not too hard to see, since they may lose their marriages -- i agree that they're scumbags, but, just as it's not legal to kill all jerkface fuckers, being a scumbag doesn't automatically preclude you from protection under the law), then I hope he has to pony that up to.

So in that case he'd have to replace the marriage? Well, I guess he could find himself on the receiving end of those 178 dominant men. "Ponying up" indeed. Think of it like truth in advertising, only after the fact. Harsh punishment, but he did say that he wanted it, right? Isn't that pretty much the logic he's using anyway?

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

Thinking more in terms of the people who, through this "scandalous" nonsense may lose their jobs or standing within the society they are surrouded with because of ignorant disapproval of their lifestyle choices makes this more clear-cut, I feel. The married guys were (unless they're polyamorous, in which case only the previous section is relevant) clearly doing something wrong, but a lot of people were not.

This childish "HA HA LOOK AT TEH BONDAGE FREAKS LOL" posting could mess with people's lives for no good reason, to the end of providing some ignorant, immature people on the internet a little giggle that amounts to little more than appeasing their lack of understanding of alternative sexual practices.

So, in short, I think people are placing too much emphasis on the assholes who were cheating on their wives. What about the sexually-adventurous people who for whatever reason chose to keep their habits out of the eyes of the people they associate with daily?

Should this be against the law, etc., is another matter altogether, but let's not forget there are perfectly innocent people having their privacy violated here, whether you believe the common man has a right to it or not.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

Now, if the guy had a stated privacy policy I'd agree with you, despite AOL and Amazon.

The little shit did have a stated privacy policy [archive.org], ironically enough.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

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.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

Maybe you don't understand how personal communication works.

I understand perfectly how personal communication works. Perhaps you have problems with "common decency" and "trust"?

There is no expectation of privacy for stuff you freely give away to a freaking stranger you don't even know.

There is an implied level of trust in this sort of thing. From the point of view of the respondents, they are replying to a like-minded individual who is advertising in an appropriate forum. This trust has been abused. No law has been broken, it's true, but it's a pretty reprehensible thing to do. I agree in my original comment that sending such personal contact details in an initial contact is perhaps naive, but that's still no excuse for this guy's actions.

but when you send me nude pics of your beautiful 300 lb naked self, you have no right to tell me what to do with them.

Nice ad hominem - so this behaviour is acceptable because the people caught out by it are ugly? Well, they must be, right? They use a personals site.

No, you have no right to tell someone what to do with a picture you send them - although you are of course free to *request* that they treat it with a little respect. Again, there is an expected behaviour in this situation, and this guy violated that expectation. He knew how most of these people would feel, and didn't care - he was in fact counting on it, that was the whole point. In my book, that makes him a bad person. Does it matter? Not really, but it does help make the world that little bit less of a nice place. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think it's better to be nice to people than unnecessarily nasty.

These perverts are probably mostly married and looking for a fling and they deserve what they get.

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter - this sort of activity contravenes your personal morality, and so it's ok for them to be treated in this way. You have no evidence that any of these people were married - although I concede that some of them probably are. Of those, of course, some will have the explicit permission of their partner, who may even be expecting to participate. Of the ones who are cheating on their partner, fine, perhaps they did get what they deserved. The rest, however, most certainly did not, no matter how perverted you may personally find their particular sexual preferences.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

No offence, but your analogies suck. I'm not even really disagreeing that these people were unwise to give out that sort of information on first contact with a complete stranger, but two wrongs don't make a right. The guy is a dick, plain and simple.

True.. I'd say a good analogy that might make people sit up a bit is if the ad was from a white woman looking for black men for sex, then post the replies and see what kind of civil liberties issues kick up a major furore. It pointless to speculate further though - you're right the guy is an unpleasant person, immature in his acts (it does seem like a childish prank - something adults will grow out of as they learn other people exist as entities like themselves and deserve to be treated like themselves).

The thing I take away from this is the number of responses to the article that say he was right to do what he did - the world is a nasty place as it is, in *my* naivete, I would like to think that the online community is filled with the better, more intelligent, more sensible and decent group of society. Shows how wrong I can be sometimes.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

Its a crime in the state where this guy posted to intentionally do anything that could reasonably be expected to cause someone embarrassment or loss. I think this qualifies, and I hope the SOB goes to jail. I think this says it all [slashdot.org].

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

Hell yeah. Whenever *I* send pictures of my tender bits to total strangers, I use my favorite creative commons license:

You are free:
* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work after blurring all identifying features of the author or licensor.
* to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:
* No Attribution. You must not attribute the work to the author or licensor.
* Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
* No Masturbation. No one may ever use this image as part of some sick fantasy.

Ooops... about his personal info

Ooops, his info just happened to fall out of no where?

Jason Fortuny 726 Kirkland Cir Apt C203 Kirkland, WA 98033, US [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail], [e-mail]

AOL IM: RFJason

ICQ UIN: 126276821

Yahoo! ID: RFJason

MSN Username: RFJason

Possible IP: 24.19.185.8

Actually there may be a lawsuit. I contacted my lawyer and sent him the link. He said that there is the definite possibility for legal action both civil and criminal. But also that it could fall into federal crimes category.

Hopefully a law firm in Washington will open a class action against him, plus the DA opens a case. I hope he learns not to "push peoples buttons" and gets the fucking living shit beaten out of him in prison. Yes, some of these guys are pervs or whatever, if you are trying to prove a point about insecurity, you could block out the full emails or addresses not to be an asshole and still get the point. You also just sent your name into Search Engine hell so good luck ever getting a job, since when your next potential employer decides to possibly Google your name.

He also has no idea about being an admin, and can not call him self a network administrator because his contact mail script, is full of holes running off what seems to be his own box at his house. A+ for effort, you dumbshit. I hope you get what is coming to you. :)

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

when you send me nude pics of your beautiful 300 lb naked self, you have no right to tell me what to do with them.
In Norway, people automatically have copyright on any picture that is (mostly) of themselves. If this is also the case in the jurisdiction(s) in question, then the above is not the case.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

Norway adheres to the Berne convention (or did last time I looked anyway) and if you take a picture of another person here, that person has a copyright on the picture. So does the person that took the picture, apparantly, but the person in the picture can veto any publication etc.

In Norwegian here:
http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#45c [lovdata.no]
In English (but unoffical I expect):
http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19610512-00 2-eng.pdf [ub.uio.no]
(para 45c)

Of course, there is a lot of leeway for the media to use pictures that are in the public interest etc. even if the copyright holder might object, but the basic law is quite clear.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

There are limitations to phone conversations due to wiretapping rules, but when you send me nude pics of your beautiful 300 lb naked self, you have no right to tell me what to do with them.

Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release [wikipedia.org]

Re:Trollin trollin trollin

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.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

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.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

I agree that the "prank" (the word really isn't strong enough) should act as a cautionary tale for more people. But I've got to say, God, what an a-hole Jason Fortuny is. Not only was his posting of the response--possibly illegal: no you don't have the right to post private data just because it was sent to you; just like you don't have the right to use my image for sale, just because I was unlucky enough to walk in front of your camera--the guy is just being an ass about his responses. I clicked on the thread by the husband and wife, in an open marriage; and not only was he treating them with scorn, derision, and heaping helpings of unwarranted hatred; but he was encouraging others to do so as well. It was like a public stoning, and practically everyone there was saying, "well, you volunteered for it, you were going to cheat on your wife" or "you deserved it, did you really think any girl would want to be submissive". Ignoring the fact that they are throwing stones at a human being.

I just have to say, I'm glad I don't do much work in that area of the country. Because, if I was ever asked if Mr. Fortuny should be hired, recommended, or even considered for a position; I'd have to state unequivocally, that I consider him to be untrustworthy, egotistical, uncaring, and highly likely to violate any private and or confidential data and materials, regardless of any policies he may have agreed to. He may be great at his job, but I, for one, would never recommend him.

I imagine as an independent contractor in the web and networking business, that he's put his livelihood in jeopardy. Cause, I'm betting that as much as the arrogant responses of the youthful looking to draw blood are commenting on his efforts; individuals and companies more likely to pay for the privilege of his service will feel a great deal more hesitation--despite any agreement that they may or may not have on the morality of the responders.

I hope that there are at least of few respondents willing to press civil charges against him (I'm not certain if any criminal charges can be brought).

What a pathetic little asshole

Exposing people who did nothing wrong and thereby at least embarassing them if not destroying their lifes is neither witty, nor funny, it's just disgusting.

And to do this just to get your 15 minutes of internet fame is incredibly pathetic. What an asshole.

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

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.

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

Maybe not, but does really seriously pissing off 178 "aggressive doms" seem like a smart move to you? Hmmmm...

Re:HA HA HA HA HA

Why is it more embarrassing to send these emails to the general public than some completely random member of the general public?

Presumably you'd have no problem with your wife writing a tell-all expose on your most depraved sexual fantasies and other pillowtalk without your knowledge or consent?

Legal Implications?

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?

Re:Did you get your Internet connection yesterday.

That's a spelling-nazi tip, dummy!

Your friend, the Accuracy-Nazi