Slashdot Mirror
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.
RFJason_CL_Experiment
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.)"
Ooops, his info just happened to fall out of no where?
Jason Fortuny 726 Kirkland Cir Apt C203 Kirkland, WA 98033, US (425)576-5417
E-mail: rfjason@hotmail.com, rfjason@livejournal.com
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.