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.
Prank yes, sociopathic possibly, may get some people to think a bit more before giving away potentially embarrassing or expensive data, priceless.
Pining for the fjords
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.
Just think of what would have happened if the prank was done with a fake man soliciting female contacts which were then dumped out on the Net for all the world to see...
Men have sat back and allowed this sickening double standard of male sexuality bad/female sexuality good stigma to permeate our current culture.
This is making fun of people because of their sexual orientations/preferences. It's the kind of thing you'd expect of highschool students.
Let's take this a step further and apply it to an already existing situation where a monopoly on information is threatened. The recording industry used to have a virtual monopoly on distribution. With the massive rise in internet availability and the adequate bandwidth to shuttle all the bits, they are facing a crisis of rampant piracy.
But is it really that bad? For the consumer, it has opened up new doors to media access. Now the average music consumer is no longer beholden to the record companies for their fix. Instead they can go online and download anything they want immediately, quickly, and privately. They just hop on a network and the media is there for consumption. However, this presents a problem for the record companies who have a vested interest in not letting this data out of their control.
The problem for the record companies is that if they want people to access the data, it requires that they either trust their customers or they lock down the data so that customers can't use the data freely. Is this so unlike the need to keep personal information private?
So what we have here in the CL prank is people scrambling over themselves to demand that private information be kept private, but these same people would have you believe that other entities (like record companies) should be forced to adapt to a changing information landscape where any information is easily sought and accessed and spread. The double standard is horrendous.
Huh? They sent naked pictures of themselves to an unknown person on the Internet...(!)
You have heard of the Internet, right? It's famous for publishing things that people don't want other people to see.
The only people who'll be "staggared" by this are tiny minded newbies who have no idea of how the world works...
(...and lawyers who are offering to sue the person responsible, but they're only pretending to be "staggared" so they can get at the money)
No sig today...
These people are adults trying to communicate with other adults for things both consent to.
It's so easy to be on your high horse, but the fact is, you should not be. These people, even the ones who were adulterous, do not deserve this level of outrage. They will have to deal with this for the next 70 years. As though they committed murder!
Any employer who googles these people ten years from now will see this.
Worse, most of these people do not evince anything implying they are married. They aren't using their employer's email either.
Some of these guys are committing minor offenses, but most aren't doing anything wrong at all.
They will be punished for this forever. Many attempting to get their pictures and names removed, explaining they weren't dishonoring a spouse or anything like that, are subjected to even further ridicule.
Lastly, the criminal who did this exclaims repeatedly that he did this to them with the explicit intent to cause them pain and suffering. He succeeded. Why buy into that? Why endorse it? Why defend something that has harmed many because a few deserved something bad, but nothing nearly this bad? Because you are a total creep?
Of course.
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.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
I see lots of comments like "it's the internet" and "what a bunch of suckers". Although, personally, I'd never respond to something like the story indicates, I feel that the person who released info on the respondants is, indeed, a sociopath. If he was NOT a sociopath, then he'd have some empathy for those who responded; ignoring, or having no, empathy IS (basically) sociopathic behaviour. I hope he gets sued... or better, goes to prison. And to label the whole activity as an "experiment" is ludicrous.
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:
J ason_CL_Experiment
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RF
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.
Too bad he very clearly documented what he did and who he is. He didn't try hiding anything about himself. The fact that it was on the net won't protect him from court.
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.
Homosexuality has less potential for abuse than BDSM, though. Especially to the kind of mind that does not accept that there is such a thing as non abusive BDSM.
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.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
What's the hypothesis, and what was he trying to prove?
Since he doesn't mention this on his wiki, I'll draw a conclusion:
He's an idiot that thought it would be fun to prank some people he thought were deviants.
I agree that people need a wake up call to get to not blindly trust anyone with an email address, but this is just preying on the weak. People looking for a hookup on the Internet? They should be rewarded for putting it out there not raked over the coals as perverts.
Don't say anything to a perfect stranger that you wouldn't say in front of your mom.
If you're not wasted, the day is.
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.
What's wrong with being a "pervert"? As long as you aren't hurting anyone, it should be fine. Does one lose one's rights just because one's secuality does not match yours?
Clever signature text goes here.
IANA(copyright)L . But don't all those men automatically have copyright over those emails and all the pictures of their bits? It's probably stretching the definition*, but those surely count as 'creative works'.
Therefore, isn't republishing them without permission a copyright violation?
*Opportunity left open for silly puns in follow-up comments.
Actually, posting his info as an AC makes him much smarter.
Eye for an eye, I suppose.
Really, the problem with what he did was that it had no point. It was just an attempt to embarrass people, and give their identity out to others. There is nothing comming out of this other than hassles for him in his life. I don't know how he could not have seen that comming.
You take it, I don't want it...
I'd notify the police the person has received death threats and ask what they suggest... nah, i wouldn't. I'd get one of those nice name plates and post it by door with my first initial and last name. eg: B.Smith. That way yer not responsible if he gets killed, and people who show up know its not his apartment.
Shadus
My self esteem was taking a pretty big hit there, what with my sending pictures of my erect penis to a complete stranger (which is a perfectly reasonable and intelligent thing to do, by the way), and then not getting back a reply. I'm just glad we live in a world where you can do such a thing with absolutely no repercussions, ever.
Yes, it is just awful that consenting adults can get away with things in their private life that you don't approve of. Let's put a stop to that.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Has there been any verification of his address/phone number (not to suggest anyone try anything against him, but I wouldn't be surprised if his "home phone number" is a voicemail service where he's just going to post verbal threats to his LJ, and if his "home address" is a maildrop).
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?
What I love about /.'ers is the giant screamfest you guys put out over the government and business abusing private information gained through nefarious means but soon as the masses do it ... it's ok. Hypocritical IMO. Which brings me to my second point ...
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
Ok we all know the information cannot be taken back. That's nice. But how do we know these people that responded are really those people's photographs and backgrounds? Physical possession does not equal authentication.
What would the author have to gain from "outing" some of these people? Remember that question about who gains you guys always ask of government? Perhaps you should apply it here. I'm not saying all of them are part of some grand fake. But one of the people "outed" was the husband of a community moderator that the prankster was banned from. And a moderator from Encyclopedia Dramatica took joy in telling the wife moderator what had happened. That seems a little too coincidental.
Let's also talk about the provenance of all this. Why is that thousands of people on the net automatically assume that the information provided to them out of nowhere is true? You guys should check out the Encyclopedia Dramatica history. That's an awful lot of people working on an article that supposedly came from one person. It's also a lot of people with an axe to grind against certain people. It's not like the after-analysis of the raw information is objective.
Lastly, but oh so aftmostly, let us talk of the prankster himself. This story was linked too yesterday on MeFi. Some of the people on that thread found some embarrasing material on the prankster as well. Like bad poetry and so on. Guess what? He took them down after people started linking too it. So not only do you have a guy who gets a kick out of publishing people's private information but he's against his own being published as well.
I really hope that no one bent on killing picks this up.
Dear Jason Fortuny,
We regret to inform you that your services as network administrator will no longer be required. The job of any IT professional confers a tremendous amount of trust that important business or personal data will not be disclosed to third parties for any reason, including sociopathic self aggrandizing glee. Recent highly publicized events have caused us to question your ability to operate within that relationship of trust with any business. We must reluctantly conclude that you certainly cannot do so in our organization.
Please gather your personal items and report for an exit interview in HR at 9:00 AM.
Sincerely,
Bernard Shifman
Personally, I wonder why the're doing things that they're emberrased by to begin with. Seems like it might be useful to seek phsychiatric help such that they can either accept themselves for what they are, or change to reflect what they want to be. It can't be fun living a life where you're perpetually ashamed of yourself.
Then again, perhaps they are perfectly comfortable and confident of themselves, but recognize that most of society disagrees with their ideas of what is proper sexual behavior for consenting adults.
It's one thing to be completely open about unusual sexual practices with friends and family, quite another to have them available on Google for future employers to misinterpret when they don't know what you are really like, and they have a mistaken stereotype of what someone with your interests will be like personally and professionally.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
What I'd love to see is someone announcing, "I sent in five responses, using contact information I ripped out of the phone book. Figuring out which men on the list are being framed is an exercise left to the readers."
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
When you say, "They deserve it," what you really mean is, "I believe they deserve it." You may believe it strongly. You may be able to come up with all sorts of valid reasons for that belief. Beliefs are fine.
The guy who pulled this vile stunt went beyond that, by deciding that he had the right to act on his beliefs, to carry out the sentence he believed these poor saps deserved.
His victims behaved stupidly. Nobody is disputing that. But there's too much stupidity in the world to make stupidity alone a punishable offense.
There are lots of people in this discussion who sound like they would be thrilled if Jason Fortuny was discovered bludgeoned to death in a back alley somewhere. I'm probably one of them. But the difference between believing he deserves such treatment, and actually giving him such treatment, is the foundation of a society based on the rule of law.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Logically, the only reason to be torn is if you think that one of the parties needs to be declared the innocent good guy. Emotionally, I would be worried if you weren't torn.
The men who provided sensitive personal information to an anonymous stranger were foolish and took a big risk. The guy who posted this private information on a public forum did commit an immoral and illegal act. The foolishness of the doms one does not absolve Jason of his offenses, and his violation of their trust does not change the fact that it was stupid of them to trust him to begin with, nor does it absolve the ones who were cheating on their wives. These men have faced the unfortunate consequences of their actions, now it is time for Jason to face the consequences of his.
On the other hand, it is a good that you can feel bad for what happened to someone while recognizing that they brought it on themselves. I mean that for both sides - the ones that had their trust violated, and the one who was to immature to realize that what he was doing wasn't just a prank. It only becomes a problem when people turn empathy into whitewash, or recognition of guilt into an excuse to demonize.
I somehow doubt that it matters that you work for a Fortune 500 or that you are an IT manager.
As far as I am concerned, this is just an example of a guy with creativity and ingenuity. He trolled a bunch of sick perverted freaks, I can hardly side with those guys and don't see why you would.
I know that if this situation were about child molestors or predators, then everyone would be getting the rope ready for every one of those perverts he caught and calling him a hero.
The moral of the story is - don't give out information to people you don't trust. If you're looking for sex, you're basically opening yourself up to a whole can of worms including STDs.
Of course, if you're one of those guys who got exposed by him, then I could see why you would be upset!
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.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
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
God, I hope you're a troll.
This is not an example of creativity and ingenuity. This is an example of being an untrustworthy jerk who really isn't in touch with the ramifications of his actions. One's sexual leanings has very little to do with how they'll operate within a workplace. One's social interactions has much to do with how they'll operate in a workplace. This guy has shown that he is immature and cannot empathize with people, is willing to do pretty much anything to impress his social group (lolz, lulz, roflcopter, et. al.), and does not fully think through his actions. Not only did he harm strangers (stupid strangers though they may be), but he simultaneously put the companies that employ him at risk of community backlash. He is therefore a liability.
If you like being whipped, gagged and forcefully dominated, it might reflect on your personality, but not nearly in the same way of the actions HE committed.