Ex-Ashley Madison CTO Threatens Libel Suit Against Journalist 142
An anonymous reader writes: Security reporter Brian Krebs, who has been instrumental in breaking news about the Ashley Madison hack, is now being threatened by the website's former CTO with a libel suit. Contained in the leaked data was a series of emails from the ex-CTO, Raja Bhatia, to the CEO of Ashley Madison's parent company. In the emails, Bhatia noted a security hole in a competing website, saying that he downloaded their user database and was capable of modifying and exposing it. After reporting on these emails, Krebs received a letter from Bhatia's lawyer (PDF) saying the post was libelous and defamatory. They demanded a retraction, which Krebs is thus far unwilling to do.
Dude, just stop (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously emails sent from him, on the AM servers, with log files, provided in data dumps following this incident, and reported on by accredited reporters in showing the public interest is "the reporter fabricating information and making shit up on his own"... Libel will get thrown out immediately, but defamation of character... Even if it's true, the public knowing about it and thinking that Raja Bhatia committed wholesale fraud, compromised a competitor's servers, and is an all around dick hole is still d
Re:Dude, just stop (Score:5, Funny)
Can't all the fake dating sites just get along? Let's all try to remember why we got into this business; to rip off lonely men.
Dude, continue digging! (Score:3)
Re: Dude, continue digging! (Score:1)
Uh, okay (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see under what legal theory that reporting facts could be considered libelous or defamatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure stolen property can be used for evidence so long as it wasn't the police that stole it.
Otherwise a trial against a burglar gets really interesting.
Illegal Evidence (Score:2)
"Illegal evidence" is that which is gathered by methods outside the constitution, i.e., through a search without a warrant, etc. The adjective "illegal" does not refer to the evidence itself, but the manner it was obtained.
Re: Illegal Evidence (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep going. One million more post of this same message and you'll make a dent in IANAL use.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's hoping the emails would be inadmissible in court because they were stolen, and possibly also intending to claim that they might have been tampered with or falsified. I don't like his chances of making that work, but that's the play, isn't it? Deny everything, speak to your lawyer, consider your options.
The problem is that in the lawyer letter he acknowledges sending the email. Not the brightest lawyer in the world.
Re: Uh, okay (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Actually, what he was was "it's being determined that she did no wrong", which is a true statement, even though I believe she committed a crime. (I'm not sure, it depends on exactly how several different laws are written, as there are several possible crimes involved, and IANAL, so she might, technically, not have been in violation.)
In any case, this was in response to the question "How's that working out for you", to which the correct answer would be "It's being a minor scandal that's being swept under t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Laugh if you want to, but there are jurisdictions, even in well developed, non-dictator ruled countries where truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges. All the prosecution have to do is prove damages. It's then up to the jury to decide whether the common interest weighs heavier on the scales than the damages caused.
Re:Uh, okay (Score:5, Informative)
there are jurisdictions, even in well developed, non-dictator ruled countries where truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges.
... and one of those is Canada, where AM is based, and where this lawsuit is being filed. In America, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. Under Canadian Defamation Law [wikipedia.org], it is not. The defendant can be found liable for damages, whether the accusations are true or not. Also, under Canadian defamation law, the defendant is presumed guilty, and has the onus of proving their statements were harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian judgements for defamation are not endocrine in the untied states.
Gland you ok feted that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh, okay (Score:5, Informative)
and one of those is Canada, where AM is based, and where this lawsuit is being filed. In America, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. Under Canadian Defamation Law, it is not.
First, no lawsuit is being filed. A lawyer just sent a warning letter.
Second, Canadian Defamation Laws do not apply to a U.S. newspaper. So why should they apply to a U.S. journalist, writing on a website written in and hosted in the U.S. by a U.S. company (Akamai)?
Third, even if the idiot can get a Canadian judgement against the U.S. person, that judgement must first go through the U.S. court system in order to be enforceable.
So, all in all, the guy can scream whatever he wants, but all he is achieving is invoking the Streisand Effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Could they get a Canadian court to block the source?
I.e. if a foreign newspaper is found guilty in Libel and Defamation, could the judge order the nation's ISPs to block access to that newspaper's website, and halt import of printed copies?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was the NYT (but it could have been the WSJ or one of those other big pappers) was sued in Melbourne, Australia for defemation (or libel, I forget and can't be bothered Googling) for making statements about an Australian man. They successfully argued jurisdiction due to having Australian digital subscribers.
That may be fine on the island of prisoners, but that doesn't make any judgment enforcable in the U.S.
I hate jurisdiction shopping, but I do think that the laws of where you live/are incorporated probably should apply as much as the ones where the person committing the act is.
Which in this case both are in the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is highly opinionated in the earlier paragraphs, and it sounds like the commentator is actually talking about the UK. As noted later, the person suing had to prove you said something defamatory (positive onus) and your defences are justification (the truth, same as the US), fair comment, responsible communication, privilege and innocent dissemination.
Trust CanLII over Wikipedia (;-))
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you want legal advice from me, pay my retainer. If you get legal advice on slashdot, may God have mercy on your soul.
Most (I believe almost all) other english speaking countries tend to follow the English Rule where it diverges from the American Rule. They may have areas which are largely changed, but I think the US is pretty much alone in the variations on defamation, contingency fees, and loser pays.
hawk, esq.
lawyer letter says article misrepresented the fact (Score:5, Interesting)
The lawyer's letter lays out his position. We don't the facts, but here's his position, which may be reasonable g
The letter to Krebs says that in the very emails Krebs relied on, the former CTO explicitly said that he did NOT download the account database. He said there is a clear vulnerability so someone COULD download the database, and he did not do so. The Krebs article appears to suggest that he did, so the Krebs article might be misrepresenting what is actually said in the emails.
The letter also seeks to distinguish between noticing a readily apparent vulnerability vs "hacking" the web site. Those are kind of two degrees of the same thing, but Krebs said "hacked". If the truth is more like "noticed", a retraction is in order.
Lastly, thr letter seeks to clarify that he was not AM's CTO, or even working for AM, at the time. Reading the article one might well get the impression that AM's CTO, on behalf of AM, hacked a competitor. That's not factually correct, the lawyer says.
Re: (Score:1)
We don't the facts, but here's his position, which may be reasonable g
I don't your post.
It's mind blowing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been twelve years since it was coined, and yet it's unbelievable that people STILL haven't heard of the Streisand effect.
Trying to shut someone up in this age just makes the information spread much faster and wider. I wouldn't have heard of this at all if the lawsuit wasn't threatened.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This actually has nothing to do with the Ashley Madison hack, except that Brian Krebs discovered this alleged hack during his investigation, and that the plaintiff used to be Ashley Madison's CTO.
The lawsuit centres around the claim that Mr. Batia hacked into rival company nerve.com and exfiltrated their entire client database back in 2012. It has nothing to do with any claims against Ashley Madison.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't you heard- none of the Ashley Madison twats were real. They were all dicks.
Streisand Effect is in effect (Score:2)
Re:Streisand Effect is in effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, it's only a half-step above running a brothel.
A brothel is at least an honest business.
Re: (Score:1)
A brothel is at least an honest business.
Please, tell me you're not that naive..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> If it's 100% legal then there's no percentage in screwing over the customers
Except for the profit margin. That seems enough to trigger fraud and abuse in money other industries. And prostitution is more vulnerable than most, due to the large amount of cash and the reluctance of most clients, and of most employees, to admit their involvement.
Even New Zealand, which is apparently very good about protection and enforcement against sex trafficking, is not immune. They're listed as a destination of interna
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Makes me wonder sometimes if we, as a race, even deserve to survive. (there's me getting cynical again)
Why are you assuming that aggression, or even using the young sexually, is _not_ a survival trait? There are many species that are notably more aggressive than humans and have outlasted our species by millions of years. Even the bonobos, who are quite closely related to humans, have large amounts of rape, even of children, as normal parts of their tribal behavior. And for other mammals, such as cani
Re:Streisand Effect is in effect (Score:5, Funny)
You really think so? I've heard that brothel customers keep getting screwed.
Re:Streisand Effect is in effect (Score:5, Funny)
Which is more than you can say for Ashley Madison customers.
Re: (Score:2)
> A brothel is at least an honest business.
In the US, at least, it's a criminal enterprise in most states. That automatically makes it likelier than most businesses to be crooked. And for far, far too many of them, the prostitutes are abused, with little ability to get police, community, or family support against abuse or harassment.
I've actually known a few former prostitutes of both genders, socially. They'd been desperate for money, for food, for drugs, and one even to care for her 2 children. One col
Re: (Score:2)
So please, don't assume that a brothel is honest.
I was more thinking red light district in Amsterdam.
honesty doubtless exists in the field, but should be seen as the exception
Depends where you are, more than anything. But sure, in America, I'd be pretty suspicious. Hell, a lot of 'legitimate stripper joints' are pretty shady.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice that there's a lot of groups actively working on making prostitution generally legal (it is legal in a lot of places), in order to reduce the hold brothels and pimps have on prostitutes - basically, they are trying to make brothels into honest businesses.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At one point there was a claim that their business had improved after the leak became known. I never even tried to check whether this was true or not. (Perhaps a lot of people didn't catch on that most of the "female" accounts appear to be men who were paid to post as women.)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm still holding out for the idea that somehow this whole 'hacking' event was engineered and staged by Ashley Madison themselves
No no... that can't be. Sony is the One and Only.
libelous and defamatory...bla bla, but is it true? (Score:1)
*sigh* Canada.. so easy to silence the critics.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but... (Score:4, Informative)
I've listened to Handel on the Law a lot. Isn't the truth an absolute defense when it comes to libel/slander suits?
Re: (Score:2)
I sure do wish it were so, but more often than not, the truth is used to defend censorship. So, now we have sealed and 'classified' documents to make it all official. The way to circumvent that is to write fiction... and, with a nod and a wink, claim none of it is 'true'.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that Handel on the Law's tagline is "marginal legal advice."
Re: (Score:1)
Not in Canada and most non-US common law countries.
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Not in Canada and most non-US common law countries.
Actually, truth is a defense against libel/slander in Canada, but the burden of proof is somewhat different in Canada than in the U.S. In Canada, it is often up to the defendant to proof that what they're saying is true, whereas in the U.S., the plaintiff must prove the statements false. In the U.K., sometimes truth isn't even a defense at all!
Re: (Score:2)
I've listened to Handel on the Law a lot. Isn't the truth an absolute defense when it comes to libel/slander suits?
Truth, but selectively quoted to give a deliberately false impression may be libel in a lot of countries (but not the US). That seems to be what the lawyer's letter is saying.
Re: (Score:2)
I've listened to Handel on the Law a lot. Isn't the truth an absolute defense when it comes to libel/slander suits?
It is in this country, but not in other countries.
Not to get stereotypical, but the CTO's name 'kinda implies that he's originally from India, or perhaps his family is from there.
He may feel justified in pursuing a libel case simply from his upbringing. This might just be a cultural difference.
(And I'm *still* wondering how these people find work after such a scandal. "CTO of Ashlet Madison" isn't something that would sell a resume, and the "so... what have you been doing for the past 4 years" has to be an
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of sociopaths on boards of directors who would love to hire someone with the track record of profiteering that the Ashley Madison execs have, and who don't give a flying fuck about the unethical nature of it. As long as the CTO can successfully shift
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the US but in France, it isn't absolute.
If the truth is presented in a way that incite misinterpretation, it is still defamation. An exemple is saying "Mr. X is involved in a crime" when Mr. X is actually a victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you're the only one who seems to care.
(To the point of being obsessed, even. Maybe you stop and should ask yourself why.)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the letter? All I see at the other end of that link is another Slashdot post.
"You were wrong and here's our evidence." (Score:2)
That's essentially what Raja Bhatia's lawyers said, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we accept the bullshit hand waving that way he said isn't what he meant, I'm not sure that drawing a lot of attention to e-mails where you admit to criminal activity is smart.
Criminal charges trump phoney liable threats (Score:2, Interesting)
If I was Krebs, I would request my attorney send a letter to Bhatia's lawyer stating that since those Emails consist of a confession to Federal level hacking charges against a US corporation that he is required by law to make the information as public as possible, especially to such agencies as the DOJ and FBI (and whatever the equivalent Canadian authorities are), and that by definition there is no liable (at least in the US, the article does state that Canada's liable laws are different). Then follow up o
why is this news I should care about? (Score:1)
Streisand Effect in 3...2...1... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, threatening Brian Krebs will work perfectly, no way this could possibly go wrong!
this reminds me of an article some time ago about. (Score:2, Interesting)
do you all remember an article that described a certain Indian class of individuals have claimed the right to lie, cheat, steal, and engage in dishonest practices to (supposedly further their advancement. This was based on the notion that individuals in their culture have been do depraved, "shit on", etc. Because of such atrocities committed, they have the right.
I wonder if this episode could be attributed to that statement and thus that type of behavior. I wonder what cultural connections this may tie back
Re: (Score:2)
On account of the horrid misconstruction "to be stood corrected", obviously. The OP meant to say something like, "I am prepared to stand corrected...," or, "I ask to be corrected."
He also doesn't close parentheses.
Wealthy and their expectations.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This dude works in tech - a CTO, well, assuming he's actually involved in tech, not some 'business' CTO - and thinks that this is a good idea. He's basically murdering his own reference for the future, nobody wants a bunk ass CTO who doesn't understand the internet or world at large, and has his name smeared all over (yada yada Streisand effect yada yada) but the bottom line is this: if you do shady shit, and get busted, there is to be no expectation of silence by anyone...once it's out, it explodes and that's fucking it. Touching it just makes the explosion bigger. "Lawyers", yeh I'm sure his lawyers are loving it - when they offer advice and "yeh, lets file a suit!" - they're just securing their own monetary gain...because obviously this whole thing blowing up just creates a larger vortex to funnel this fucktards money into.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did read the letter. I did read the article. The letter simply states "did not" - while the original e-mail states "did". Of course the lawyers are going to claim none of this was interpreted correctly, that's all they can attempt to do....alter history and perception. The e-mails are leaked. The database (sample) *was* leaked. This all happened. The lawyer letter? Um....yeah, ok, lets take that as truth, because obviously they have no motive to twist the truth, right?
No disconnection from reality here, p
Ashley Madison's CTO shouldn't be suing Krebs... (Score:2)
...he should be researching which countries don't have extradition treaties with the United States...
Also: Top 10 Ashley Madison Pickup Lines [battleswarmblog.com].