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.
I stole the picture I sent from another site! Ha Ha!
"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.
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.
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?
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
RFJason_CL_Experiment
Why did he have to post all the information! I'LL NEVER WORK IN SEATTLE AGAIN :(
Thanks a lot Jason, you jerk
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 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.
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.
Here's the link to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica article in question, if anyone cares:F Jason_Craigslist_Experiment
http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/R
This is making fun of people because of their sexual orientations/preferences. It's the kind of thing you'd expect of highschool students.
Was the guy an asshole to include contact information? Yes. Whether he did it out of spite or laziness is irrelevant; it's not cool to post contact info for the world to see. Personally my punishment would be "$500 fine and think about what you done."
Is he a sociopath? Not necesssarily. I can think of many reasons why someone would think they were doing their community a service by doing this... the reasons are wrong, but they don't indicate a callous disregard for all of humanity, just a callous disregard for a certain subset of it - and I can understand that.
Still, posting contact information like that is Not Cool.
Beauty is just a light switch away.
what's really remarkable about this prankster's behavior is that he has revealed his OWN personally identifying details attached to the results of his prank
...and if he embarasses/ ruins the marriage of the wrong kind of guy, he will receive a visit from a very sadistic type who wishes to dominate him and deliver this prankster a world of pain
wtf!?
so, in a way, the ad isn't a lie:
he posted an ad for someone looking to be the submissive member in a sadomasochistic arrangement
so the ad will result in a response that the "fake" poster was seeking after all when all is said and done
we should all be so lucky in the personal ads
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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?
it's not libel or slander, since its true... but it is definitely socially unacceptable to post the info. I don't believe anyone should be able to sue however.
The other thing is, there's no proof that the prankster didn't modify the emails and frame someone or mix things up in some intentional way.
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?
at least the pricks who were cheating on their wives do. Sure, he was immature as anything (where do these people get all the time?) but I don't think he violated anyones privacy.
Rule #1 : When you post your most intimate information, in photographic form, from your work address to a sex freak on the internet - you don't have any privacy anymore.
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.
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...
Make a list of all the reasons you and your friends got your Internet connections. How many of them are "socially unacceptable"...?
No sig today...
Free knowledge makes people behave, but baiting people to misbehave is pushing it. It's one thing to publish records who did certain things the way Chicago does, but this is going a little farther. I mean, there's a difference between offering "no strings attached sex" with a noose attached and looking for the people accepting those offers and busting them.
IANA*
Some states allow companies to fire people for any reason.
No, there are no states that allow companies to fire people for any reason. Firings must always have cause. An inappropriate firing is justification for a lucrative wrongful termination lawsuit, in any state.
doesn't mean you lose your rights. Your rights to privacy or anything else. What Fortuny did was clearly malicious, illegal, and sociopathic.
It doesn't matter that the people who responded were foolish. That's a red herring. That doesn't make what was done any more acceptable.
Just because it's the internet, and the people who replied were at the very least, foolish, doesn't mean that the law doesn't still apply.
(And just a friendly, grammar-nazi tip, it's "staggered", not "staggared" )
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
Rawhide! Seriously though, this guy was just trolling, a well honed art here on /. In any case he appears to be an attention whore with personal issues, this hit fark a while back, and apparently on his myspace profile he describes himself as a "Ferris Beuller", and tells all the little people not to feel bad that they can't be him. Theres nothing deep here, no hidden agenda, no implications for the wider society, just a sad little man. I wonder will they sue him? Now that would be ironic - hey man, didn't you know? The internet isn't anonymous!
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
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.
Jerry C. is spending too much time on CL!
'At will' employment is not the same as 'impunity-free firing'. As you said, people cannot be fired for any reason, but only those reasons not protected by the law (which is actually further reaching than your post would lead one to believe).
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.
I've been making flamebait posts to /. for months, then secretly posting the responses elsewhere! Now I have to find a new game...
That's a spelling-nazi tip, dummy!
Your friend, the Accuracy-Nazi
http://outcampaign.org/
Because who will really want to "be friends" with "Jason Fortuny" after this?
This is a breach of trust.
Who would ever want to be his significant other? You might get embarassing videos or pics of you posted on the net "just because".
His co-workers better be careful around him. He might make your laugh/fart/sneeze etc a downloadable ringtone or something and make fun of you just because he thought it was cool.
So if it's really him, I think it was a bad move for him too.
i take it you have never been employed
there are MANY "at will" states where any reason or no reason, so long as the reason, if it exists, isn't an illegal reason (race, sex, age, disability etc.)
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Legal or illegal becomes moot when there is no way to enforce a law. Either because it is simply not applicable (because the other person is somewhere at the end of the world with very different national law), or it is unenforcable (because the other person is somewhere at the end of the world and the authorities there have better things to do than searching for someone's dick).
Legal action against someone on the net... I'd rather put my money in a DDoS farm. It's way more efficient.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
:P~~
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
I suggest you re-read my post in a modern browser. I use the italics tag to emphasize the word 'any' in my post because it is important that that word be understood as the focal point of my post.
I re-iterate. There are no states that allow firing for ANY reason. (I used capital letters there to indicate emphasis, this should work on your browser.)
But since you already understand the limitations of at-will employment, I don't think I need to go over it again.
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.
Irrespective of the tenuous justifications for posting individuals responses, photographs and other personally identifiable information the bottom line as the Wired blog touches on is that Jason has clearly broken privacy Laws, and there isn't really much grey area in what he's done either.
IANAL but if there had been a public interest in sharing this information then he *might* have got away with it the same way that tabloid newspapers do, but even then he would require a legal *team* analysing his every word stated and what every sentence may or may not be construed as implying. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "omg the Internet = free information and freedom of speech!" won't hold up in Court.
Part of me is sympathetic because its the sort of prank that any number might think up and execute without forethought of the possible legal ramifications. People wrongfully assume that because the Internet makes anyone a journalist for little/no money that somehow this absolves them from any kind of libel or slander Laws. This sometimes leads people to doing or saying things that they would never consider (or at least have an infrastructure in place that would stop it from happening - e.g. editor, etc) if they were publishing the information in one of the regular media forms - newspaper, radio or television.
Whilst IANAL I do know categorically that Jason's actions in publishing all of these peoples' personal information, irrespective of whatever justification he or others believe to be behind it (e.g. some are married, etc), will lead to legal action that he is sure to lose.
I think I speak for most people here when I say: if I seen the ad, I would have sent in some furry yiff as my "image" along with a lot of bogus info. I would bet 90% of those emails are just SPAM...
Great Intellect...
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.
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!
Clearly the guy's a smug asshole who has done an unknown but perhaps considerable amount of damage to a bunch of random BDSM people (and there are a great many quiet, sensitive, intelligent people in that community, to say nothing of a great many shy wannabees in whom I think we can all see something of ourselves). However, I can't figure out whether it's actually illegal and I am quite curious... does anyone know?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Odd thing, the full Encyclopeida Dramatica site is down, and even more strange is that the Wikipedia article 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.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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.
The simple fact he posted personal information like that will be his undoing. It being a prank or experiment is one thing, but when he violated people's privacy, he went too far. He could have somehow censored a lot of the stuff he was sent, still proving that he received the material though.
There's one thing though. If he's a heterosexual male, you have to feel sorry for the fact he saw the genitalia of other men.
As for those (stupid) people who gave out their personal information, at least their doing one thing good. Proving that it's a bad idea to give out such personal information. Always be cautious.
Does craigslist have any sort of policy against what has happened? Didn't any of the men put any disclaimer in the e-mails they sent to not share out their personal information? (I know when I contact certain sites, I ask not to be added to any mailing list inside the message, but of course, that's a different thing entirely.)
Fortuny's karma will be the fact that his reputation for committing his sociopathic and shameful actions will be ON EVERY INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE for the rest of his life; every time someone does a search on his name - i.e. potential employers, friends, lovers, neighbors, etc.
Fortuny is far more troubled than any of the people he outed, that's for sure.
What's really ironic is that people Fortuny knows well - possibly even close friends or relatives - no doubt harbor, and may even act on some of the fetishes that his victims were pursuing. S&M is not what most people prefer, but it's not exactly uncommon. What an irony!!
... now he's yanking information that was on his site, design portfolio stuff, etc... silly man, doesn't he know about the wayback machine? :)
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://rfjason.com
Shadus
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.
There's nothing more erotic than the feeling of the laryngeal muscles of a swan flapping wildly against your forearm as you slowly push a handful of oats into its belly. Once the bird faints from exhaustion and the muscles go slack, the sensation of limpness and the smooth, slippery bile-coated esophagus are akin to the finest silk pulled gently across the naked back. Imagine, if you will, the pleasure in consuming the regurgitated oats that spew from the fowl's beak and licking the dewy eyeballs of the near-death bird.
Now to click the Post Anon box to keep my identity a secret.
So THAT's why I never got a reply! 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.
Jason Fortuny
320 10th St
Kirkland, WA 98033
(425) 443-1573
RFJason@RFJason.com
...and add this scumbag to the Sex Offenders Register. The reported facts (which may be partial or incorrect) suggest criminal charges of soliciting and indecent exposure.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
I just have to weigh in. This is the most incredibly depressing, immature stunt I have ever seen in my life. This man doesn't care about anyone in the world, he just wants his fifteen minutes and he isn't afraid to stomp all over everyone else to get it. Honestly, I hope someone seeks some non-violent revenge out on him. If only I weren't an atheist--I'd love to sleep better at night knowing this guy had to look forward to an eternity in hell. What is he, a middle-schooler? He reminds me of the people who ride by in cars screaming "fag!" at pedestrians. He's a coward and an idiot. He should be tarred and feathered and never work again. I hope companies google his name before hiring him in the future. What a sad, pathetic little idiot.
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.
Here's some of his shitty poetry, care of the wayback machine:
ocean's cold
rfjason
Closing up shop in a world of endless wonder
All those rides sent your mind asunder
I always thought you'd win the days last light
I'm sorry that I was right
Never fear the machine's darkness
Even the roaring would leave you helpless
I always knew you'd bring back someone
To remind me of all that I had done
Oh, ocean's cold
They never told you to watch out ever
Thrilled with the ride that they had never
Ridden through all it's twists and turns
The ticket dries and burns
Oh, ocean's cold
Do you feel it now, the ocean's cold
You'd never know it sneaking up on you
The permanance of what you go through
I always thought you'd win the burning rays
I'm sorry that you saw these days
Oh no, ocean's cold
Oh I feel it now, the ocean's cold
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
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...
A guy posing as a girl on the Internet? Well, it's a considerable chance. Have that in mind if you try to pick up "women" on the net.
Also have in mind what you send unencrypted to unknown receivers.
Furthermore, just because people send you stuff, it doesn't mean that you should go public with it.
Stupid for sending, yes. Stupid for resending as a batch (with your own fucking private information attached), hell yes.
Whether or not he likes it, I'd be willing to bet Google has a bit on him. It probably has something on most people. What I suspect he should be most worried about though is his whois info, apparently he doesn't mind if these people have his home address. I certainly wouldn't want to give out this information in association with a prank.
GPL: Free as in will
Poets Are Shitty
A Haiku by Walnut mon
Poets are shitty,
Pretentious and retarded,
Poets are so gay,
You take it, I don't want it...
Since there were no falsehoods, and the names were not "anonymized", then there is no tort, either.
Want to bet?
Ever hear of "willful infliction of emotional distress"?
There are an awful lot of tort theories to choose from, and any decent lawyer could shred that punk in court.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
My girlfriend and I live in the same apartment complex as this Jason jerk in Kirkland, WA (a suburb of Seattle). He posted his address on a web site before taking it down. The only problem is that he didn't publish which apartment number he was in. There are only 4 apartments in our unit; he's in one of the upstairs pair.
So now I'm worried that some of these furious men will come after him and will instead throw their rocks through my windows, or worse. I feel like my well-being has been potentially endangered by this guy. What should I do? Part of me feels like shouting his address (WITH apartment number) from the Internet rooftops. Part of me wants to post a sign on our door that says "sociopath A-hole Jason upstairs, not here." Maybe I should even alert the police. Any ideas?
Why is it more embarrassing to send these emails to the general public than some completely random member of the general public?
Possibly because nobody actually just wrote up a sexually-explicit post and sent it to mailto:random(). They sent it to someone who, under false pretenses, was luring them into the open. Were they stupid? Sure. But there's a huge difference between responding to a request for information from an individual and broadcasting your response to the known world.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
I guess you never worked for an 'at will empolyer', which means they don't even have to tell you the reason you're being fired. It can and does happen in normal contracts too. They can simply say 'your lifestyle hurts the company image, and therefore will hurt our profits'. I don't think you see christian book stores allowing empolyees into demonic worship for this reason. It also helps to be a privately held company.
Actually, what would be nice would be that he faked the whole thing, and those people who supposedly responded are fake. As an experiment about respect of private life, and what people thing is right or wrong on the internet. This would be nice.
'Poser pwns pervs, posts pictures'
Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
The men who sent lude photos of themselves to a perfect stranger they've never even seen shouldn't have a problem if a few thousand other perfect strangers see them.
They let their passions override their common sence and this is the result. Good or bad, life has a 'funny' way of giving people what they deserve.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Registrant:
.............Wed Oct 18 23:23:23 2000 .............Thu Oct 19 02:45:15 2006 .Sun Jun 26 16:38:53 2005
RFJason
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA 98033
United States of America
Registrar: DomainPeople Inc.
Domain Name: rfjason.com
Created on
Expires on
Record last updated on
Administrative Contact:
RFJason
Jason Fortuny
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA
98033, US
(425)5765417
(425)5765417
RFJason@Hotmail.com
Technical Contact:
RFJason
Jason Fortuny
726 Kirkland Cir
Apt C203
Kirkland, WA
98033, US
(425)5765417
(425)5765417
RFJason@Hotmail.com
Domain servers in listed order:
ns0.xname.org 195.20.105.149
ns1.xname.org
(rfjason.com)
Within the melee of distributing their information to 'legitimate consumers', the record companies and the victims of this prank are equivalent. They wish to disseminate their information to as many legitimate consumers as possible while also wishing to keep that data out of the hands of any not deemed to be legitimate.
So the double standard still holds. It may be a false dichotomy to say that we must choose between a truly open society (all music is free and your personal information is too) and a closed, secretive society (where you pay to consume music and your private habits are protected from prying eyes), however where is the line to be drawn? Harm can not be the sole criteria. Is not the record company and by extension the musicians represented by them harmed by the free dissemination of their product? So what should the sole criteria be?
Fortuny clearly is a narccisistic sadist. Since he posted an ad to out sadists inhabiting what he interprets as an environment intersecting or congruent to his own territory, effectively he has removed or "demoted" his "competition", in a twisted simian or serial killer like sense.
He imagines that this feat proves his superiority and that it will net him rewards, so he can "get the girl" or be showered with praise etc. Though it would make more sense if he is seeking a male masochist, since he could just wait for the guys he outed to contact him for a date. Since Fortuny seem to be spectacularly oblivious to consequences I could believe that, which is why I expect him to get a severe physical beating from someone real soon now.
Looking forward to hearing the follow up on whether he gets sued, "demoted" or otherwise fried for this since the last thing we need is copycats. I thought programmers were kind of altruistic but I can't tell if this is an evil one or just that the bar has gotten lowered so far that it attracts nasty pieces of work like Fortuny. (somehow I find it hard to imagine that is his real name).
Not quite, he got the information right off the guys website not under false pretexts in something presumed to be confidential. Shrug.
Shadus
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?
That situation is completely different. In that case, Guy A was suing Guy B because Guy B ran a web forum where Guys C posted disparaging comments about Guy A. In this case, on the other hand, Guys A (will be) suing Guy B because Guy B solicited responses under false pretenses, Guys A responded in good faith, and with some expectation of privacy (given that the responses were via email, and not on a forum), and then Guy B posted them on the Internet for all to see.
Do you see how the situations are different?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
see the book at amazon
Why is this act of vandalism being reported on Slashdot? The guy who did this is clearly disturbed, publicity is what he is seeking, and publicity will serve to do further damage to the people involved.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050223012842/rfjason. com/resume/?page=resumecomplete
Sites:
http://rubberstampmanagement.com/Default.htm
Jason Fortuny Kirkland, WA. RFJason@RFJason.com 425-443-1573
"It's like getting three employees for the price of one."
"I can learn new technology in a matter of hours instead of weeks like other technical people."
"Went on sabbatical from RSM for six months to enrich customer service experience."
"Developed cost-reduced method for letterhead and business card printing."
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.
Actually this entire drama is based on a falsehood, i.e the ad which was posted. In essence what he has done is run a phishing scam, except that in this case his reward is not monetary, its his perverse enjoyment in harassing other people.
So yea, he can be sued.
.. because it has happened (see this link).
The truth is a LOT of personal information of ours is stored in computers. Some of it is benign. Some of it is kinky. Some of it could put our financial, social, and medical lives at risk!
In this circumstance we are talking about someone who divulged information of a sexual nature - but google can do this too by matching gmail address cookies with search phrases.. scary!
It is one thing to catch pedofiles snaring their prey, but these people hasn't done anything wrong. Neither have they set out to any malicious endevour. ... black females.
They merely have a specific taste in sex, much like people who likes blondes, or
To act like this person is to feed the very same monster which has killed so many people and maimed even more.
Shame on him - this is not a harmless prank
Using copyright to apply DRM to media: Bad
Using copyright to sue someone who tricked you into posing nude: Good
*Looks at url bar* Yeah that's about right.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Makes about as much sense as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the back, then laughing and pointing at them for not being more careful because, you know, there are crazy people out there who will do bad things to you.
Uh, yeah... apparently.
Frankly, he should be put on the sex offenders list. That'd learn 'im.
Are sociopaths or psychopaths, on average, so if you fuck over around 150 people, there will be on average something like 6 of them who would quite happily take revenge literally without any consideration of the consequences and without conscience.
RFJason is making the same mistake his victims made, he thinks he's somewhat anonymous, but there's no such thing, especially if he's used an identity for quite a while. Someone will find out where he lives, who his friends are. That's karma for you.
Deleted
726 Kirkland Cir Apt C-203
Kirkland, WA 98033
---
I would be worried, that's from wayback...and I'm internet savy and have used CAS for kinky stuff. But then again i live in SF and know lots of poly types. someone else might be extremely pissed.
---
the dude used to run an SM website too. fuckin asshole.
Ok, maybe those guys were a bit naive to send personally indentifiable information of such delicate nature to a Craiglist entry.
BUT
they never assumed that somebody would just post it on the internet. He probably destroyed several marriages, cost a job or two and ruined the lives of several of the respondents. For what? I think he deserves whatever he's got coming to him - be it a lawsuit or a real good beating (probably some of both).
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
I just wonder if the guy was really so dumb... After he did nothing to avoid "ends up suffering some form of retribution over this stunt". He should know very well what could happen since after all he used the same kind of information building his stunt.
So I start to wonder, if the guy provided real personal information. Or if the guy didn't provide the real information but of somebody he didn't like. Just imagine you hate one of your coworker. You just need little : build a little trick like this one and say you are your coworker.
How on earth does sending a private mail constitute publication?
I'd like to see your research, then, because AFAIK that hasn't been the situation in the US for many years now, and never was the situation in some jurisdictions.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It'll be interesting when this guy starts looking for a job. I think it's pretty standard practice to google someone's name when you're interviewing them for a job these days. This guy is going to have this prank as hit numbers 1 through 100 for the rest of his life. Anyone reading about this is going to run like hell; he obviously can't be trusted with private information. I certainly wouldn't hire him; every company that hires professionals at some time or another expects their employees to keep certain information confidential.
If you are stupid enough to send out information to random individual over the internet, you deserve what you get. I just wish someone would do this with child pornogrpahers... but wait, they are hard to catch because unlike these idiots... they aren't stupid!
Presumably most people know )and trust) their wife a little better than some random person who posted an ad on cragislist?
The point is that these people sent their information to someone they don't know *at all*, which is roughly similar to just posting it on their web page for all to see.
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...
I found out the hard way =(
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
This fool could learn a few valuable lessons by spending a day or three in the company of a strict Dom. He wouldn't be able to sit for a few days to post an apology but I'm sure it would be worth the wait. And think of the cash that could be generated by selling the videos from his "training sessions".
---
If you're going to do it, do it like you mean it.
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.
If you have something to hide, don't put it on the internet! Yes, that includes emailing random people on craigslist!
Simple enough.
Has anyone actually read Craigslist's Terms Of Use? ContentWatch (Internet Filter) blocks it, because the language is so explicit. IIRC, the whole personals section is a violation of those terms.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use.html
Also, under the do-not-post-under-any-surcumstances section (7 - "CONDUCT"), we find anything:
i) that is false, deceptive, misleading, deceitful, misinformative, or constitutes "bait and switch";
Sounds like this guy's in for a real surprise, especially if craigslist chooses to prosecute. I don't claim to know the full extent of the law, but I do know that they could nail him good for that one. That's what the Terms of Use are for.
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
Well, technically, there's nothing wrong with being a pervert. I'm not going to claim to not be one to an extent myself.
However, it's more the display of stupidity than perversion that I'm condemning these people for. Anyone who gave away their real information to someone who they have no idea their real identity because they couldn't keep it in their pants...no, I refuse to feel sorry for those idiots.
Although somehow I doubt very much REAL information was exchanged in this mess.
Isn't that link valid only for media reporting? Does posting the same things on the internet count as reporting in media? Is this law applicable in this case? I have no idea...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
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.
You don't even have to feel sorry for them. I certainly don't. But what this guy did was sociopathic to say the least.
Clever signature text goes here.
I predict that one way or another this guy is going to regret doing this.
He's assuming that people are going to be too ashamed of their sexuality or of having sent information to someone who turned out to be scamming to pursue this civically or criminally; and my guess is that he is right about that most people.
- however, there are plenty of people in the world who have no problem with what they do and who they are and have no problem with doing whatever it takes to make this guy pay. Whether it's a criminal case, a civil case, or more base methods of returning the screw.
The post of the thread where he is going back and forth with the guy who is asking him to remove the personal information shows his arrogance, and, AFAIAC his ignorance as well.
There is always somebody tougher, there is always somebody smarter, and there is always someone with nothing to lose - he obviously hasn't learned that yet.
Also, as a previous post mentioned there is also the possibility that this will hurt him professionally at some point.
Is NBC sociopathic as well?
Yes.
Its a legal term. You'll have to ask a lawyer why this is the case.
Copyright and patent law has different meanings to words that the rest of us who speak the English language. For instance if you design a dress and wear it to a party then you have "published" the design.
I think this would be the case in any public disclosure. As for a private disclosure - I'll have to check that. I think if one were to invite guests to a private party then this would still be considered "publishing". However if one were to answer the door because a delivery person rang the doorbell while wearing said dress - then this might not be publishing - I don't know.
----------
Funny - the reply gets modded up as the main post gets modded "Troll". Seems the moderation around here is about as bad as normal. Ugghhh!
"You agree not to post, email, or otherwise make available Content: ...
...
...
...
g) that impersonates any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a
craigslist employee, or falsely states or otherwise misrepresents your
affiliation with a person or entity (this provision does not apply to Content
that constitutes lawful non-deceptive parody of public figures.);
h) that includes personal or identifying information about another person
without that person's explicit consent;
i) that is false, deceptive, misleading, deceitful, misinformative, or
constitutes "bait and switch";
Additionally, you agree not to:
s) "stalk" or otherwise harass anyone;
t) collect personal data about other users for commercial or unlawful
purposes;
You understand and agree that, because damages are often difficult to quantify,
if it becomes necessary for craigslist to pursue legal action to enforce the
TOU, you will be liable to pay craigslist the following amounts as liquidated
damages, which you accept as reasonable estimates of craigslists' damages for
the specified breaches of the TOU:
a. If you post a message that (1) impersonates any person or entity; (2)
falsely states or otherwise misrepresents your affiliation with a person or
entity; or (3) that includes personal or identifying information about
another person without that person's explicit consent, you agree to pay
craigslist one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each such message.
f. If you aggregate, display, copy, duplicate, reproduce, or otherwise
exploit for any purpose any Content (except for your own Content) in
violation of the TOU without craigslist's express written permission,
you agree to pay craigslist three thousand dollars ($3,000) for each day
on which you engage in such conduct."
There's been several comments about legal action; perhaps rightly so. But, the question I ask myself is: With a list of people such as he's exposed, what are the chances that someone will skip the courts all together, and go find the author for a 'personal chat,' or perhaps something more grave?
I think my instict for self-preservation is a bit stronger than that.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
"Prank yes, sociopathic possibly"
Many of the posts I have read here discuss the men who responded to the ad and what they should have/have not expected. Perhaps Fortuny is getting off lightly in these comments because a man posing as a woman on the internet is one of the oldest clichés going, and it no longer surprises anyone. Fortuny posed as a submissive woman. If he did this on the street or a nightclub, more people would suggest he has a personal problem. What makes this deceitful behaviour acceptable on the internet?
Perhaps some people believe that the internet is an inherently deceitful environment, and rationalise that everyone should be aware of that, and therefore victims have nobody to blame but themselves. If such an inherently deceitful environment were the case, then again the problem would be the deceit itself, not the victims' gullibility.
"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."
The problem here isn't giving away information, but someone fraudulently gathering the information and believing they are free to do with it as they wish. In many cases of deceit, it is too easy to blame the victims, but they are just that: victims. Would you accept the rape of a woman because it teaches society a lesson about walking down dark alleys at night?
(Having mentioned deceit and privacy, I expect that someone may point out that some of the victim's were married, which makes them deceitful. Their behaviour is not an issue here, it is the behaviour of Fortuny that is on the table. Exposing philanderers, weirdos or losers does not excuse Fortuny's actions, and it is not up to Fortuny to decide what kind of punishment they are to receive.)
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Craigslist represents itself as a digital equivalent of the "classifieds" section of a local newspaper, in many ways. Sensible or not (and I think the more techno-savvy among us would clearly leans towards "not"), the public uses Craigslists under an initial assumption that it's roughly as "reputable" a place as the classifieds from the newspapers.
(After all, it makes a big deal out of the self-policing nature of the system, where anyone can "flag" a post for one of several reasons, and a few "flags" immediately result in the message being pulled. That tends to give people some comfort, despite realizing all messages posted are anonymous.)
Anyone who collects up private information of others and proceeds to repost it someplace is misusing the information he/she was provided with and is breaking the law. That seems pretty clear. The rest of the arguments are irrelevant here.
If you "ask for sex using your work email address", you might be an idiot, but you're no less protected under the same laws that protect you when you do it under any other email address, only to find the person you communicated with was acting under false pretenses and reposted your personal info for the world to see.
It's his work's problem to reprimand him or terminate his employment for his misuse of company email. It's not the job of some guy on Craigslist to assist in making it happen!
How is this even an 'experiment'? It's not like he's sailing uncharted waters, trying to find out if the BDSM scene is active or not. Of course it is, people do it all the time. It's asinine that he did such a thing, and to call it an 'experiment' or a 'prank' is absurd.
This, if it happened, is a more interesting experiment, and didn't expose anyone's information.
Uhm... I see a little problem with your logic there. You need to replace "roughly similar" with "totally different."
The guy posts to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Only the lowest dregs of "lol internet" bother to do that.
Most other people really are a bit more considerate.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I agree with you. The thing that angers me the most is that he is hiding behind the cloak of reason that it was a 'scientific experiment'. It was no more a legitimate experiment than the Tuskegee Experiment.
;-)
And yes, I hope he has his passport and bags packed. After all, the ad was seeking sexual sadists. But maybe that is what he was looking for.
One hears so much about people not being hired for posting a picture of themselves drunk on mySpace... how is he going to explain this in an interview? Thanks to Google, he probably won't be getting too many interviews to be a network administrator anymore. He should probably consider a career move to HR.. this sort of action would be looked on admirably in that field.
How about:
1.) You apply for a job via e-mail while still at your current job.
2.) The prospective company takes your resume, contact information, and put it in a very public place and call attention to your current employer.
3.) They claim it's OK because it was immoral for you to be seeking new employment; also, you e-mailed them, so you have no right to expect privacy.
That's complete bull-crap and you all know it. The same applies here. It is a violation of privacy and decent human behaviour. This man is not a crusader, he is a sadist.
-- Mr
Snarfle.
I've seen good pranks, but the arrogance of the dude (in his writings on his blogsite) just makes this not as funny.
I should have known when there was early mention of things posted on to Livejournhell
Blatently "unethical". But bless his heart, now that he's done it there's nothing stopping a sociologist from talking about it anecdotally. :) Even getting close to a subject by fraud and retaining the subject's anonymity can be unethical. Google the classic controversy surrounding Laud Humphreys' Tearoom Trade for historical background.
Just because it sounds like a childish prank it doesn't mean you can't get sued over it.
Star Wars kid got a settlement with his "friends" for an undisclosed amount. And they were kids. And it was a video of stupid dancing.
These are a lot of grown persons, nude, with full contact data. He *will* get his ass kicked either in court or on the street.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
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.
Let me toss in a few flaws in your analogy to demonstrate why these two things aren't equivalent, and you can take it from there if you're still somehow confused about why there needs not be a "sole criterion" for such things.
1.) The spread of a musician's music to those who have not paid for it is unlikely to do serious and lasting harm to his reputation. People aren't going to stop inviting him to parties or throw rocks in his window because someone pirated his music.
2.) Having his music pirated is rather unlikely to affect his chances for future employment or association. Nobody is going to turn him down for a job because his music is being distributed illegally.
3.) It's unlikely that his personal relationships (like his marriage) will be adversely affected by people pirating his music.
Also a point is that there are a number of restrictions on the paid distribution of music that don't match in your analogy at all. For example, format shifting is a big bone of contention in music distribution that has no real match in the distributing of personal information.
Still, the crux of the matter is that your analogy is bad because these respondents didn't want their information distributed widely. Said another way, it's unlikely they'd be willing to give it up to anyone who "paid" them, no matter who it was.
So, your username is still accurate.
Virg
He obviously takes a lot of pleasure in torturing this Jerry guy. He plays cat and mouse while Jerry swings into full panic mode. Reading this transcript was literally painful. Seeing someone take so much fun at inflicting so much anguish to another person is deeply disturbing.
The guy shows absolutely zero empathy towards his victims. In some way, he's a cripple. He lacks a basic ability that most people have : the ability to care and to relate. I think he's perfectly aware of the harm he's causing. He just doesn't think it's wrong.
The fact that he chose to call this an experiment is revealing. In his mind, his victims are mere subjects not people with feelings.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
As for the copyright violations - that is a tough one. The copyright to an email and a jpeg rests with the author. However this was published and in such a fashion that it might actually be public domain. In the USA one must register the copyright prior to publishing and if this is not done the copyright becomes imperfect and as such enters limbo. (IANAL but I have researched this).
The US hasn't required registration for Copyright since 1976 (though it has advantages in damages awarded). And there is no such thing as "releasing it in such a fashion that it might be public domain" -- authors have to make any transfer of rights and ownership explicitly, there is no such thing as implicit transfer of copyright under current US or international law (most major countries are signatories of the Berne Convention).
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
It already happens, that person you spent the night with last week, they told all their friends every detail about it.
Deal with it. there are no secrets when it comes to sex
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
i was replying to your incorrect statement
Firings must always have cause.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
...to "IANAL".
*ducks*
Where did you get the idea that this conduct is illegal? It can be illegal if done by a government agency, but there's nothing illegal about an individual "outing" another individual. You may be able to sue the person who published the information for damages, but that's just a private lawsuit and has nothing to do with criminal law.
"Did any of the personal emails request the dude not post the naked pictures?"
No but, when those pictures were taken, they immediatly fell under copyright for the photographer. They were clearly sent for private viewing to a specific individual, so there was not only no explicit permission to redistribute the copyritten work, but there was no implicite permission either. There has clearly been a federal crime committed here, and the individual who violated this law should have his home immediatly raided, his computer equipment siezed, be sentenced to the appropriate jail time, and have to pay the current maximum restitution for copyright violation.
Just because these individuals were not big RIAA/MPAA corporations does not mean that they do not have the same legal rights to copyright. So, until copyright gets overhauled with something a little more sane, copyright is an obviouse and legal way to crush the guy who did this.
Research some more. Registration is not required in any country that have ratified the Berne convention on copyright, which includes the US. In the US registering copyright is required in some cases if you want to pursue an infringement case, but the registration can be done when you decide to go to court - it doesn't need to have been registered on or before publication.
If Waxy and then BoingBoing, Wired, ./ , NYtimes etc etc. didn't cover this story, I wouldn't hear about this incident and these people at all. Now the word is out and all these people are exposed even more.
Check out the www.9news.com website. They've been posting
pictures of the wanna-be pedophiles who answered a sting ad
posted by a law-enforcement agency... by showing up at the
rendezvous hotel room.
And these guys ended up with sexual offender status.
His childish attitude of "he he he, Men like sex with ladies!" makes him look far more pathetic than the adults, who broke no laws, that he exploited for his own gains... Good luck getting a job now Mr "Web developer".
God Be Gone
Slashdot didn't start the "experiment". Slashdot had no prior knowledge of the "experiment". Slashdot's links were to the news article that commented on the "experiment." The articles that Slashdot linked to didn't include any of the names, E-mail addresses, or pictures (sorry if you were disappointed!).
Shifting the blame for the situation to Slashdot is nonsensical, but hey - "shooting the messenger" is a fun game with an ancient and honorable lineage, and any number can play.
By the same token, how ethical was it for you to go and click the link to find out about the "experiment"?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
An adult with a sexual interest in spanking little girls may still be newsworthy.
An adult with a sexual interest in spanking adult women while role-playing? Very much not newsworthy unless there are extraordinary circumstances. E.g., a teacher who's already under investigation for inappropriate contact with students.
I think there are two "highly offensive to a reasonable person" questions here. Is the responder's behavior highly offensive? Some individuals may feel that way, but as long as it's consenting it's legal and nobody else's business.
Is the publisher's behavior highly offensive? Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone being indifferent to the public disclosure of their sexual fantasies. Even porn stars -- who make a living displaying explicit sexual behavior -- keep their private lives private. It is hard to think of anything that we consider more private and unsuitable for public disclosure.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I thought that Fortuny had done something horribly cruel and needlessly sadistic to a bunch of strangers, by announcing their sexual fetishes to the world. I thought there was no more horrific form of public shaming.
Until I saw this.
You're a stone cold bastard, Zork.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
if you're gonna say something nasty, don't do it in writing, you jerk.
published in a high profile manor for all to see??
What, like the Playboy Mansion?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Maybe give the guy a friendly call :
m in
... ...
1. Jason Fortuny: Graphic Artist + Network Administrator
personal.rfjason.com/resume/?page=resumenetworkad
Published on: 6/22/2006 Last Visited: 6/22/2006
Jason Fortuny Graphic Artist + Network Administrator
Jason Fortuny Kirkland, WA. RFJason@RFJason.com 425-443-1573
Jason Fortuny offers network administration service to the Seattle/Tacoma area and graphic design service globally.
2. Jason Fortuny: Graphic Artist + Network Administrator
rfjason.com/resume/?page=resumenetworkadmin
Published on: 10/13/2004 Last Visited: 10/13/2004
Jason Fortuny Kirkland, WA. RFJason@RFJason.com 425-443-1573
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 don't think that the fact that those people should have known better makes his actions any less reprehensible. I hope at the very least craigslist takes some action against him. From their TOS: You agree not to post, email, or otherwise make available Content: ...
i) that is false, deceptive, misleading, deceitful, misinformative, or
constitutes "bait and switch";
Additionally, you agree not to: ...
s) "stalk" or otherwise harass anyone;
t) collect personal data about other users for commercial or unlawful
purposes;
I would say his acts qualify as a clear violation of this, don't you?
It sounds like what the poster you are replying to is getting at is the relative amount of embarrassment of revealing private information to one random stranger vs. having it revealed to ALL random strangers. One's wife, however, is generally privvy to a bit more private information than "some completely random member of the general public" is, so your analogy in rebuttal doesn't quite fit.
Most of the personals ads in Women seeking Men on Craigslist are fake. Most of them are spam for dating services, autoresponders for porno sites, or gay guys trolling for pictures of men.
Some of the fake ads are from a commercial service, CatchEmOut.com. This company runs fake dating ads, logs the e-mail addresses, and, for only $4.95, you can search their database. "Find out about their secret life before it's too late" they advertise. "Dating and Escort sites are booming with some genuine people and many people just trawling for an affair or casual sex. If you think, or are just curious if your partner maybe registered on one of these sites, has answered to one or has contacted a prostitute via E-Mail there is now an answer." "We will look through our available database and let you know INSTANTLY which site they are registered on, or which ads they may have replied to."
So someone has already been doing this. For money.
Having previously been friends with Jason in the past, I can say this is exactly the sort of thing he does for fun. He looks for ways to humiliate and degrade people. He is a deeply disturbed individual. Sociopathic is definitely a good term. Other people only exist for his personal enjoyment, nothing else. He cares not one iota for other individuals beyond what sort of entertainment he can glean from them. Based on what I've heard from the women who have attempted serious relationship with him, he is extremely emotionally abusive.
Seriously, the more attention you give this childish prank, the more he will do it and the more people who will get hurt. Frankly, it's only a matter of time before he crosses the line and someone gets physically injured by Fortuny's "entertainment".
Is it no surprise that such an attention whore has an LJ?
rfjason.livejournal.com
rfjason.com
He considers us trash to be used for his enjoyment.
Let's see that he doesn't "get away" with his abusive behavior any further, shall we?
If my wife chose to do that she'd have every right to. It doesn't matter if I "had a problem" with it or not. I don't need to give consent. That's the way free speech works.
Think what would happen if people *didn't* talk when others had a problem with something, or had to seek consent. Whistleblowers would be stopped dead in their tracks. Enron executives would still be raking it in. Exposes wouldn't be written. We'd have no idea when our politicians were doing something wrong.
People don't need to make others happy while exercising their first amendment rights.
Lawsuits aside, this guy just pissed off a bunch of people who specialize in giving pain, and take enjoyment from doing this. Brilliant. I have a hunch that the details of the ad (i.e. straight female) are a hoax, but the generalities are not. This guy wants to get hurt and he's going to get what he wants.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Q: What's the difference between an aggressive dom and Jason Fortuny?
A: One's a sick pervert who gets off on abusing other people to make himself feel better. The other's just into a little bondage.
I've been waiting to comment on this one. I've seen it floating around in a couple places the past few days (digg, fark, etc.). The most repulsive part of this is that on the Tucker Max messageboard, he is asking for advice on how to turn this into some sort of career move.
My prediction is that this ruins his personal life, professional life, and finances. In the world of google, who doesn't run the name of a prospective employee through google? Lawsuit happy; Yep, he'd probably lose them and go broke. Personal life; I can't imagine there is much of one if he does this type of stuff, and even so, what girl would find this type of behavior endearing?
His best option at this point would be to just shut up, let it go, and do some growing up.
-steveI 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!
Who will assure you that the party you are replying to is a person at all? How do you know it's an e-mail address at all and not an entire mailing list? You have no assurance that you are dealing with a single person who is going to keep your information secret. You're essentially talking in the dark to an unknown number of listeners, but assuming that you are only talking to a single, honest person.
** I do think that any information you'd choose to send out in any e-mail in plaintext form is an inherent forfeit of privacy. This is why corporations have the intellectual property, copyright and privacy disclaimer at the bottom of corporate e-mails. I didn't see any of these disclaimers on the featured Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Perhaps if these people had used them they could sue for damages.
"if the woman LOVES it then how could it NOT NOT be offensive"
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Things like that can and often are held to be legally binding. If you are going to go out and claim that you are going to protect privacy, you enter in to a certian legal obligation to do so.
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 ?
Usually is "preponderance of the evidence", which is considerably stronger than "reasonable belief", though weaker than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal law.
Considering the number of mailings a person receives from lawyers after getting a traffic ticket, or being in some sort of public accident, I wouldn't be surprised if the prankees already have a class-action suit brewing.
<IRONY=100%>
Thank you for that inspiring bit of armchair diagnosis, as well as compassion.
<IRONY=0%>
You are missing the point of the exercise. The main issue isn't whether there are people into bondage answering ads. The issue is what the bozo who put the fake ad out there was trying to do. He sure as anything wasn't trying to make some statement about "bondage is bad." He was getting his jollies from tricking all of the respondents and broadcasting their personal information... which strikes me as a greater illness.
If it was "pretexting" by HP investigators, you'd be yelling and screaming - and rightfully so. However, as this case involves people who indulge in a kink that isn't to your taste... your response tells us volumes about who you think has rights and who doesn't.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
A undisclosed settlement doesn't mean anything. They might have settled with just paying his incurred legal fees up to that point. Anyway, we don't know what it was, so we can't use it as an argument for one side or the other. There are plenty of other cases you could have picked.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
While I was not directly affected by this, no man is an island. So if I ever meet this individual, I will gladly beat the silly little prick to death. Don't think you have to call 911, I will not care to waste my time hunting him down. But some day he is going to be interviewing with someone not "ultra right wing" and they will feel as I do. He has lost his right to privacy IMHO, and he also broke the same kind of social contract that anyone guilty of assault breaks. Since he has decided that he is above common courtesy I think do onto others applies.
Of course his only supporters are obvious fools and christians.
Being a female geek isn't easy and so I've tried the on-line dating thing. (Dramatic Eye Roll) - All you ever get are a bunch of posers and losers. Most of them are married, many with children and none of them are shy about giving out personal details like employment (bragging), salary (bragging), work phone #, cell phone #, email address, etc. What you won't get from most of them is a photo that's taken in the last 20 years or a home phone #.
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank
Google "public disclosure of private embarrassing facts".
I'm pretty sure that an e-mail sent to one person would be considered a private communication. I hope many people sue the bastard.
While I can't condone the sexual appetite of the people who responded to his "ad" - I can feel sympathy to their plight. What this guy did is simply morally, ethically and potentially, criminally (and civally) wrong. What if he posted his ad soliciting homosexuals and then outted them with the purpose of destroying their life because he doesn't like homosexuals? Would this then be a hate crime? Does what he did actually classify as a hate crime? Would be nice.
Somebody else posted in here that the "married" guys were probably heading for divorce anyway. There is no proof of that - it is not a foregone conclusion. However, exposing those men in this manner simply may make it impossible for them to reconcile with their spouse if that might have been their wish. To me, that is a truly dispicable act for which there should be harsh penalties. If the guys were commiting a crime - such as pedophilia - they guy might be hailed as a hero - we have an obligation to report criminal acts. But, what these guys did is not criminal - just detestable.
A friend of mine whose husband was caught having an illicit affair with a young teen since the victim was 14 knows the pain and humiliation that a public outting such as this can cause to all parties involved - including her two young children. The guy involved is currently serving 5 years with 15 years probation (including no contact with children under the age of 18 without an adult being present - that includes non-immediate family members). The stigma he'll endure from his actions will follow him for the rest of his life (well, aside from the fact that he's been labelled a Sexually Violent Predator because of the age of girl when it transpired). I personally don't have sympathy for him - he chose the path - but my friend has found the compassion to try to forgive him and allow him to get treatment. She may still yet leave him - but it's been 2 1/2 years and she's still with him. She's waiting to see if he can change. So, clearly, just because the guy is a schmuck, doesn't mean his marriage is doomed to failure.
The point is, that just because the guys did something for which this prick didn't agree with, he had no right to essentially phish and then out them and violating their privacy by publishing "private" email. I suspect he will be looking over his shoulder - possible for the rest of his life (however long that might be) - wondering when one of the people he victimized (or somebody else disgusted with him) catches up with him. Call it Karma.
If you receive a letter all you own is the physical letter itself. You do not have the right to republish the contents; this has been established copyright law for more than 100 years. The fact that so many people do it and believe it is OK does not in fact make it so.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
...I think you'd have trouble getting a prosecution under that act for a small violation like republishing one letter. You can bet your socks that was passed for the RIAA, MPAA, and associated jackals. However, the case of Mr. Fortuny and his numerous victims might be an exception to that.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
What dope you been smoking? Half the states in the union are at will employment. That means you can be fired for ANY reason and you don't have to be told WHY you are being fired.
You have heard of the Internet, right? It's famous for publishing things that people don't want other people to see.
And for people who go to prison for posting nudie pics of their ex after a breakup.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I went to high school with this guy. He was pretentious and self absorbed then. Still is.
Had the pleasure of seeing him post my high school alumni board in the thread used for Military people to post their current whereabouts and adventures. In the middle of some guys in Iraq posting their status and catching up with old friends, this winner jumps in with a rant detailing how injured soldiers and their families deserve the pain and suffering due to their support of the war and current administration. Not a thought was given to those who may have enlisted under the previous administration.
Needless to say, the group was highly disturbed, Mr. Fortuny continued to verbally spar with all who would entertain him highlight how they "didn't get it" where he did and reaffirming that those in the military deserved the wounds and deaths, further stating that they were most likely in the military due to their sub-par intelligence and inability to get a real job anyhow.
And then he was banned from the forum.
I can assure you that this guy is real, as his is contact information. When telling the veterans how dumb they were he was quite proud that his personal information was easy to find with a little research (clearly confident that military grunts are too stupid to work google for anything beyond sports scores and porn) and welcomed anyone to come visit him. This was, of course, coupled with the comment that if he were to get his ass beat by a military man this would prove how primitive and honorless they are.
Well, as a military man myself, I think I can handle the loss of status in his eyes in exchange for a few minutes of showing him what uneducated people get taught to do with their hands. (Bestill your comments on how right that may make him. Some comments are unforgivable.)
This is a common theme with Mr. Fortuny, in my observations. I'm not sure if it's a lashing out at the world for some wrong he experienced or if this is the typical reaction of someone who gets stomped on IRL so he flexes his muscles and works his agressions virtually. Either way his actions are inexcusable. I really would have thought this guy would have come much further in the 10 years since high school.
As for the legal ramifications, IANAL but, isn't the lone fact that he attained all these emails disguised as someone else a huge factor? Reminds me of grifters, con artists and black mailers.
It does appear, at the very least, that Jason violated the TOS with Craigslist.com:
"You agree to NOT use the Service to:
Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another's privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."
I think this would be an easy civil trial. But the next week or so should be the most interesting as Jason, our mutual friends and, evidently, his downstairs neighbor all wait to see what sort of truely deranged and violent person would respond to an ad like that.
Thoughts?
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
Most people seem to take for granted that all those responses to the fake ad are true, and that the guy who posted the fake ad even exists.
Using the term from the site, we did not "independently verify" that any of these people exist. Would be a good media-spoof if this all turns out to be a big prank. And that is an option that we all considered, being internet-savvy and all, right? Right?
I joined two users too late.
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.
You clearly have little knowledge of law.
Maybe because unlike a child molestor, people who happen to enjoy that particular hobby haven't done anything WRONG, except in your narrow morality. Get it through your head, the vast majority of those people responded to a personal ad for someone who professed a like-minded interest that is perfectly legal, no different than drinking beer, watching baseball or eating apple pie.
Nice unfounded assumption. Where have I heard it before though? Oh right - 'If you have nothing to hide..'
Having read the comments on
http://www.rvats.com/Lawdetails-publish.asp
"Legal Definition of - publish
Legal Definition of publish : v. to make public to at least one other person by any means.
This means wearing a new dress design such that it can be seen by at least one other person is considered "publish"ing.
As this applies to a patent - if you show it to anyone then you have published it. You have to get them to agree to non-disclosure first.
In the case of the jokers who posted their pics - they clearly did publish it under law and as such the guy who posted this published information is allowed to do so under fair use interpretations which allow critisism of published works.
While people might not like it - I think a law suit against the guy goes nowhere.
They can't sue him for defamation because he just made known what they published. A solid defence in a defamation suit is that he spoke the truth.
Law only requires disclosure to one other person.
Also see here: http://www.answers.com/publish&r=67
Hmm - as I wrote those last few comments I was thinking that the horney jerks might be able to sue under fraud legislation because he certainly seems to have fraudulantly presented himself. But he didn't do it for money.
The problem with claiming fraud is that on dating sites, it is normal for people to use psuedonyms and there is no requirement that anything posted in a profile be factual. In fact many who replied used pseudonyms and probably posted false information as well such as the breadth and length of their members. Certainly some lied about their marital status or intended too.
Its much like TV entertainment. In the 60's a game show was sued because the contestants were slipped the answers. The producers won on the basis that its only entertainment. There is no suggestion that anything on TV actually be factual. Tricking the public is part of the game - the "War of the Worlds" broadcast falls into this area.
I think it can be successfully argued that profiles on dating sites might also be considered little more than entertainment since we all know that so many are false in one way or another.
Will no one rid humanity of this meddlesome jerk?
This guy ranks right under Fred Phelps in my book. If this guy was hit by a bus tomorrow, lived, only to get run over by a truck three seconds later, who would cry for him?
So like, if you submit this post to the appropriate court, they'd totally jail this guy right? Oh wait, you're full of shit.
what bugs me with a prank like this, other than the obvious privacy issues, is the implied puritanism. the doer of this prank, is not like much of a "sociopath," per se- more likely he is a someone programmed with the reactionary and puritan ideals that large parts of American society hold dear. gathering this kind of information and then sharing it publically is something usually done to chastise those who would enjoy what the craigslist post was offering. it's like those counter-419 sites, or the sites that troll for paedophiles and then post their information- IM username, phone number, address, the whole chat log, etc.
and while the whole dom/sub thing really isn't my scene, i scoff at reactionaries who go out of their way to condemn, chastise and embarass folks who happen to get off on something different than them. to each their own, as long as you're not hurting someone against their will or otherwise coercing them. but others, including this guy, obviously don't subscribe to that kind of philsophy.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
(karma whoring since I had to create a new account) I have been really intrigued by this guy rfjason's actions and have been googling for information just to see what the deal is... I think he might actually be the BIGGEST asshole ever. This is some choice links for insight into this guy's fucked-up-ness: Comments on New orleans Reply to someone who didnt enjoy his PREVIOUS prank His request for help at the tucker max forum The last one is amazing.... A bunch of self-declared assholes concluding that this rfjason guy REALLY is a douche-bag (they just have no qualms about helping him :P)
Another good one
Seriously, this guy is unbelievable and appears to have said something to piss off everyone at some point or another.
We come in peace... We leave in pieces...
I'm going to split hairs here but if you're really at-risk with your employer for something that is private and legal, then you need a better choice in employment. I've been hearing all kinds of grousing about google searches before hiring and risk at-job searches - and you know what?
I really - REALLY am enjoying being a contractor more and more. I get hired to do the work. Not to be fearful of HR every waking moment of my life.
That's my choice. And I'm a very happy camper.
Or you can be a fearful victim all your life waiting for your life to be pulled out from under you.
Your choice.
( you might also choose to alter high-risk behavior - but I"ll let the other posts beat that one to death )
This whole affair, from the deceptive gathering of information right up to the manner of his responses to his victims, just says a whole lot about the kind of screwed up parents he has. Not a lot of family love in your home, was there Jason? I can only imagine this kind of behavior from someone who was emotionally, physically, or sexually abused as a child from his parents...
I don't pine for work to do and wait for layers of approval processes, I get down to the business of doing it. I don't work with agencies who deal out that garbage either. You're thinking HR bullshit again.
If they have a problem for me to fix. Great hire me and let's get started. If you want to muck about my personal history for a week, I'll probably be working for someone else by then. And good riddance. Before I started some of my own projects into high gear recently, I juggled 3 clients a week - 2 per day, you wanted more time, you had to get on the ball and stop fucking around. I've still got two projects waiting for me to open up my schedule. You think I'd honestly put up with all your shit and scrutiny and waste my time which could be handed to other people in a heartbeat?
That's called working in a competitive market. It's also known as not putting up with someone else's BS because someone told you that's the way it's done. I'll admit I get at least one of these every few months. It's great fun whacking them upside the head with a reality outside their cubicle. A guilty pleasure actually.
BTW - this is just one of 3 businesses I'm juggling at present. If number 3 pans out then, it's onto starting number 4.
Good luck with playing their rules. I'm having great fun with my own. Money's not bad either.
Normally I don't bother replying to flames like yours because it's a waste of time. But your other posts make it appear that you aren't always unreasonable and anyone can have an off day, so:
Shifting the blame for the situation to Slashdot is nonsensical, but hey - "shooting the messenger" is a fun game with an ancient and honorable lineage, and any number can play.
I didn't shoot the messenger nor did I shift any blame. I didn't even accuse Slashdot of being unethical (although I asked the question). I simply wondered why, with all the comments made about what a nasty "experiment" this was, no one noticed that Slashdot had furthered it by its link. That Slashdot *has* furthered it (at least some) is undeniable; several hundred people posted comments indicating that they had followed the links on to the "experiment" itself. People who probably would have never noticed it absent the Slashdot article.
By the same token, how ethical was it for you to go and click the link to find out about the "experiment"?
Nothing in my post stated or implied that I have visited the site of the experiment so you must have made that leap on your own. I was posting on the comments made by Slashdot readers. Anyway, one person clicking on a link is far different than putting the link on a site visited by tens of thousands of people. And, again, I wasn't making a comment about whether or not Slashdot had done anything unethical... just that no one had noticed that it might be reasonably construed as unethical by some people. To extend this argument, if Slashdot posted a link that would lead a reader to child porn wouldn't that be as unethical (or even as illegal) as the post itself? It would not be necessary to have prior knowledge of the porn or to have originally posted the porn. But if they knew that the site being linked to had further links to the porn itself then I think at least some ethical breach would have occured. While this argument can be debated, I'm not sure I'd call it "nonsensical".
I thought your personal remarks ("(sorry if you were disappointed!)") as well as your accusation that I must have followed the links to the site itself were juvenile and uncalled for and amount to a personal attack. If "shooting the messenger" is a popular game then you seem adept at it.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Any DA that applies that law in this case should be hanged on the 6 o'clock news (unless they truly believe that one of those posted pics might have been someone underage).
Regardless, that law is unconstitutional except for when the product crosses state lines. The Federal Government has no right to regulate the "porn industry" unless it is in regards to interstate commerce.
This was posted on the Net, so it potentially could fall under federal jurisdiction, however, since it was a localized site, it could be argued that it might not.
Libertas in infinitum
I may have been mistaken about the tenor of your post. I believe that you are mistaken about the tenor of mine... and/or that I may have not communicated my point well.
I was angry (and I should know better than to post while angry...) about the whole situation. Fortuny fooled people into trusting an ad, and has crowed about doing the same thing to other people. He showed no remorse for this.
I don't believe that Slashdot is part of the problem. Slashdot may have posted indirect links to the site, but again, I don't think that it's necessarily an unethical thing. It is a matter of the person running the browser making a personal decision whether to follow those links to their logical end, or settling for the news site links that go to that site. If they don't have some link to what they're reporting, then the staff of Slashdot is doing nothing more than rumor-mongering.
Individuals may have posted the direct links to the site. I didn't check those out - I have no particular desire either to add to the humiliation of the people involved.
And my remark about "sorry if you were disappointed!" was, in retrospect, un-called for, and I apologize for it.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
I was going for Score 3: Funny. Guess I had an off day..
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Random people who post ads on Craigs list aren't "friends and family". If one recognizes that "most of society" thinks their practices are weird, one should realize that people would be likely to post prank ads on Craigslist, and therefore take *a litte* precaution before sharing that information. Simply telling everyone who asks (and providing unsolicited photographs, etc) implies to me that it's not such a big secret...
Actually, I beg to differ. These people, essentially, "brought it on themselves." There is no expectation of privacy on a site like CL. That said, I run the website http://www.craigslist-perverts.org/ and I have exposed men like this over and over..they never learn. Stupid is as stupid does, and my site happily exploits their stupidity for entertainment. I also contact wives and employers.