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.

Comments

The jokes on you!

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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

Re:The jokes on you!

[kripkenstein]

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

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

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

or

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

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

Re:The jokes on you!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, he did take down all of his personal information on his registered website that has existed for at least a bit. so we can assume he's real or a damn good planner and has lots of time on his hands. his resume isn't likely to be fake either. As to the respondents, well if he's stupid enough to use HIS real name (this will follow him negatively for a long time) he's probably not faking his joy and arrogance in the many many responses and probably actually did this stupid stunt.

Re:The jokes on you!

[Gentlewhisper]

Not work safe!

Re:The jokes on you!

[sjwaste]

Obligatory...

You have a woman dressed in leather, down on all fours, with a dog collar around her neck and some man is pushing a leather glove in her face. How is that not offensive?

Look, you should've seen what they wanted to put on the cover. And it wasn't a glove, I'll tell you that much.

This is not exactly a new trick

[Anonymous Coward]

"Send me a picture of your cock -- I'll suck the best one - w4m" got about 22 replies that made me very, very sad about Gmail autodisplaying images, and very, very sad that I was on the particular mailing list used to post the ad.

Re:This is not exactly a new trick

[cerberusss]

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

I sent a picture of my Golden Retriever.

Re:This is not exactly a new trick

[-brazil-]

It blocks images linked to in HTML emails, but not images sent as attachments. And that behaviour doesn't seem to be configurable.

Re:This is not exactly a new trick

[spun]

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

I sent a picture of my Golden Retriever.

I sent in a picture of Foghorn Leghorn.

It's perhaps time people understood

[Flying pig]

The risks they are taking with this kind of behavior: I mean the respondents, of course. It seems a lot of people still do not understand how the Internet works; for instance, when people post personal details to blogs and then are surprised that other people read them, as if they thought only "suitable" people would somehow have access. The more people understand that giving away personal information in an insecure environment is actually deeply stupid, the better for us all in the long term.

Prank yes, sociopathic possibly, may get some people to think a bit more before giving away potentially embarrassing or expensive data, priceless.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[mano_k]

They did not understand how the internet works?
They did not publish their personal information on some website, they sent it to someone who had published an ad in a suitable forum! This has nothing to do with "how the internet works" but is all about "how people work"!

Of course I would not send my real name, official email-address and such in response to an ad, but this has nothing to do with me being a nerd, but with knowing that there are truly stupid people out there.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Tim C]

I agree with you to an extent, but this is not the same as people expecting blog postings to magically only be visible to the intended audience. This is people responding to an invitation to contact someone who is making that invitation under false pretences. There is absolutely no difference between this, and someone placing a personal ad in a newspaper, then publishing the responses in that paper (other than that this costs the guy nothing).

I agree that there should be no expectation of privacy regarding information that is published on the web. However, this was *not* published on the web, and I think there is an implied expectation of privacy regarding personal communications (eaves-droppers notwithstanding).

You're right, in that some of these people were perhaps a little foolish to supply personal contact details quite so readily, but that doesn't excuse the guy who did this. I'm certainly not a psychologist, but this guy pretty much fits my personal, layman's definition of sociopath, as he clearly has zero empathy or respect for the people he did this to.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Opportunist]

Excuse me, but sending very private information to someone you don't have the foggiest clue about pretty much means you don't know how the 'net works.

It's funny how many people will even respond to fraudulent requests to surrender information to "da man", thinking that everyone pisses their pants before even considering imposing as federal agents, not thinking that it could be kinda hard to execute federal US law against someone located in a country ending in -stan.

Then again, considering the anti-spam, anti-fraud, anti-bad-thing-done-through-the-internet laws passed recently, neither do politicians have a clue how it works...

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[CortoMaltese]

It certainly is time for people to understand.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say on the Internet can and will be used against you. You have the right to speak to an attorney, but he can't help you take back what you said on the Internet. Nobody can.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Tim C]

Maybe you don't understand how personal communication works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Southpaw018]

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Trust? Why don't you let me borrow your car, since you think you can trust total strangers with nudie pics of yourself.

Implied trust? No EULA, no contract, no binding trust. To send naked pictures of yourself to a stranger as an initial contact is not naive, it is stupid beyond belief.

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

Humor. My bad, I forgot we were on /.

Did any of the personal emails request the dude not post the naked pictures? The dude is a bad person because he outed some perverts? Anything online should be treated as totally in public. Don't like it? Use an alias or lots of encryption. I have no problem with what they are doing, but people need to know that others can easily find out stuff you don't want online.

I grew up with finger, and nerds never freaked out about people knowing "I am in the computer lab at 4:00 AM again". Want privacy, take the steps to ensure privacy. Sending naked pics by an inital email to a stranger is stupid, and people need to realize that.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[bentcd]

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[allgood2]

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

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[gbjbaanb]

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Anonymous Coward]

if you write and send me a letter I can do what I want with it.

Just because you assert it does not make it true.

These letters were responses to the the posting of a fraudulent offer. The person committing the fraud then published these letters without the permission of the authors.

So besides fraud, the original poster (whom many have deemed a sociopath) has also committed extensive violations of copyright law. Each letter is a count (at least) under the Federal statutes which make copyright violation a felony.

Yes, privately you can do with any letter what you want. Publicly is another matter.

Just like if you decide to assert you are a submissive fem. Privately no one has (or should have) any problem with that. Publicly, if you actually are not, is another story.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you have no right to tell someone what to do with a picture you send them

Unless you took it, in which case you are the copyright holder. They would certainly need your permission to redistribute it.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Opportunist]

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[GregWebb]

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

Not true.

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Skye16]

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

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[paanta]

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[tacocat]

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[rjstanford]

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[tomhudson]

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Anonymous Coward]

They only thing these guys should be thankful for is that it was some guy playing a joke on them and not the FBI or Homeland trying to get someone arrested for soliciting a prostitute.

If it were, they wouldnt be in much legal trouble - just the pain in the ass of going to court and getting it thrown out on the basis of entrapment.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[zootm]

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

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[lawpoop]

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

Your average, nuerotypical person is good at reading body language and understanding the signs of authenticity, such as clothing, vehicle, dialect, etc. However, they aren't the best readers, and their skeptical tools aren't as refined as they are for sniffing out con artists. They've been lied to and heard BS stories hundreds of times from all sorts of people all throughout their life. However, they've very rarely encountered a situation where they've needed to think critically about information they encountered in writing. They've never encountered written BS. Most people, when encountering conflicting information in text, think that they simply don't understand the text. Also, the punishments for ignoring official letters are far greater than telling a real bureaucrat who you thought was a con artist to f*ck off.

Ever since its invention, writing is the defacto sign of authority. The very first writings were receipts for business transactions. Literate people were a rare commodity, and only the aristocracy could afford to train and employ them. The village idiot didn't have an independent paper or a blog. He just ranted out loud in the square. Anything written was official, simply by the fact that it was written. Also, we have 3 of the world's major religions based on a Holy Book that was dictated by God Himself. That lends an 'aura' of authenticity to writing.

Unfortunately, the internet is primarily a written medium, and people tend to take anything that's written as gospel, just as they have for thousands of years.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[zootm]

Spot on post there. The issue as I see it isn't so much about breaking laws, or the fact that some of the people were married, but more to do with the fact that the guy in question was clearly just being a complete asshole.

It's just immature nonsense, and the fact that so many people seem to find the action admirable in some way annoys the hell out of me. This is a high school-level prank with far more serious repercussions for people's lives, and not just for the ones who were "doing something wrong" (the married ones), at best. It's immature, it's not funny, and it just shows that the prankster has no respect for people in general. Which is summed up perfectly in the linked blog entries characterisation of the act as "sociopathic".

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Vinnie_333]

Sending highly private, personal information to someone you've never met, ... means you're just an idiot.

Of course, these people were hoping to get laid. Which bypasses the brain and goes straight to other body parts.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[sm62704]

I have no sympathy whatever.

Some used their work accounts, provided their real names and gave out their cellphone numbers. One looks to be a contractor for Microsoft, while another used a .mil address to reply.

What a bunch of stupid jackasses! Work accounts? Cell numbers? And jesus but shouldn't a guy who works for Microsoft, even as a janitor, know better?

Fortuny seems not to realize or pretends not to realize that his prank may cost people their jobs and possibly, their marriages

Realise, or care? I wouldn't have cared; your work account is for work. Your work DOES post and even require you read their policies, don't they? You might as well say that someone's job was threatened because he informed the bosses that the employees were embezzling.

As to the married guys I have even LESS sympathy. They simply should not be cybersexing, period.

These morons got what they deserved. Especially the Microsoft guy.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[metamatic]

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

The little shit did have a stated privacy policy, ironically enough.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[bentcd]

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

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

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

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[generic-man]

Your link is dead. Guess the guy knew how to opt out of the Wayback Machine (after people had used it against him, of course). Is there an archive of the Wayback Machine anywhere? :)

What a pathetic little asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely.

And the arrogant little wanker is not exactly hard to find. I would not be surprised to read that he ends up suffering some form of retribution over this stunt; legal, physical, or otherwise. The little asshole thought it was funny to spread the respondents' personal info over the net, but now he is working overtime trying to remove his data.

I expect this will affect his business. Character matters, and we've gotten a good view of his. Yes, the respondents should have used better judgement, but that does not excuse his actions.

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

[legoburner]

Yes, as good an idea as he thought it was, any company that ever googles his name now will instantly see pages associated with sex-related pranks, and see pages and pages of controversy and arguments. I read in one place that a couple of marriages are breaking apart because of his actions*, and he has been anything but anonymous in his 'prank' (his full address was available along with phone number and name on his site when he first did this and it has been reposted in quite a few places), so one wonders what will come either legally or illegally of him as a result of this.

*Though they would probably have broken apart anyway as nobody can hide this sort of thing forever.

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

[avenj]

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

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

[Jaysyn]

I'm betting he doesn't have 178 model release forms either...

Jaysyn

Legal Implications?

[Alicat1194]

Wouldn't this be some sort of breach of contract or communication? Since the guys who replied believed they were responding to an individual, and thus most likely consider it a private communication, would they be able to take legal action?

Re:Legal Implications?

[rm999]

from tfa:

"But was any law actually broken? Fortuny obviously misrepresented himself under false pretenses, which is itself possibly actionable, but the privacy implications beyond that are very interesting. Does emailing someone your personal information act as an implicit waiver of your right to privacy? I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, no.

If taken to court, he's at risk of two primary civil claims. "Intentional infliction of emotional distress," while notoriously hard to prove in court, is certainly easier here based on his own writings. The second, more relevant claim, is "public disclosure of private facts." This Findlaw article on the Washingtonienne scandal sums it up nicely:

        The disclosure must be public. The facts must be private. The plaintiff must be identified. The publication must be "highly offensive." And there must be an "absence of legitimate concern to the public" with respect to the publication.

It certainly seems like this clearly fits the criteria for a tort claim, but I'd love to hear some legal interpretation from the law bloggers out there. Does volunteering your information in a private context somehow invalidate your privacy rights? I don't think so. (For more information, see the EFF's Bloggers' FAQ on Privacy.)"

Re:Legal Implications?

[headLITE]

I don't know about the US, but in many countries this would qualify as a misdelivered message (no difference between dead tree and electronic). As the tubologically challenged guys who responded sent their messages to a woman (or believed they were doing so), they could say the guy who published them really had no right to them because he was not the addressee.

Regardless of this, at least for those that will have their marriage ruined by this... you probably deserve it. If you're married, don't look for adventures online.

Re:Legal Implications?

[jcr]

Well, there are all kinds ofpossible tort actions here, but I would think that the guy's in the greatest danger of just getting beaten to death, considering that he was advertising for BDSM types..

-jcr

Re:Legal Implications?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say the "doms" have more legal cause to sue over the publishing of the pictures. Receipt of an image does not in any way give you the right to freely distribute it. Hell, you can't take a picture of a person on a street and publish it without their permission (or blurring the face.) Or to be precise you can, but you can get sued for it and you will lose.

Unless he got the "doms" to sign releases-- or at the very least had a line in the ad that said any submission (no clever wordplay intended) would be his property, all rights reserved etc. etc. then he is without question reproducing their images without permission.

Responses

[Anonymous Coward]

RFJason_CL_Experiment

Ahhhhhhhh!!!

[Mikachu]

Why did he have to post all the information! I'LL NEVER WORK IN SEATTLE AGAIN :(

Thanks a lot Jason, you jerk

Welcome to the new world

[identity0]

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.

Encyclopaedia Dramatica Link

[Bueller_007]

Here's the link to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica article in question, if anyone cares:
http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RF Jason_Craigslist_Experiment

I feel for these suckers

[svunt]

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?

Re:I feel for these suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

I learnt this lesson and stated to be careful around 10 (or more) years ago.

I came across a link to a website that said something like 'click here for hot chicks'. Of course I clicked on it and the front page asked me to enter my name and email address to see hot chicks. There wasn't a big problem with spam back then and porn was still mostly confined to alt.binaries.sex, so I entered my details in out of curiosity (of course).

The next thing I know, a picture of chicks (as in baby chicken) comes up with a message saying something like "Hope you enjoy these pictures of hot chicks. Here is the list of others that share your passion for poultry", followed by my personal details and a list of personal details of other people.

I've been careful with my details ever since.

I'm really torn on this

[IICV]

I really can't make up my opinion on this case, probably because it's 12:30 am here. Anyway, on the one hand, the people who responded to this with any information that's directly traceable to them are morons, and doubly so for the ones who were stupid enough to use their friggin' work e-mail. I mean, come on! Everyone likes a bit of the old misuse of company resources now and then, but asking for sex with your work address? It's probably a good thing your genes won't spread far.

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?

Re:I'm really torn on this

[Miniluv]

I'm actually willing to believe Jason Fortuny does in fact exist. His behavior sends strong signals that he really did post all of this with his own info, and as the enormity of the potential consequences of what he did begin to dawn on him he's feverishly redacting his info off his websites. As if it wasn't mirrored all over the web by the time he had this lightbulb moment.

I found it truly amusing that someone sought to exploit people's inherent belief in the anonymity of the internet while clinging to that same belief himself.

Perfect IIED case

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Same as the old world

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Did you get your Internet connection yesterday...?

[Joce640k]

Wouldn't this be some sort of breach of contract or communication?

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)

Re:Did you get your Internet connection yesterday.

[Alicat1194]

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)

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" )

Trollin trollin trollin

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

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!

Re:Trollin trollin trollin

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

FTFA:

September 10: Jason Fortuny modified his homepage to remove all references to his professional life: portfolio, resume, and references to past clients are all gone. (Compare to the older versions on the Internet Archive.) It also looks like he's been scrubbing his personal contact information from his Livejournal comments and homepage. For example, this link from my post originally went to a comment with his contact information, but it's been removed entirely. (Strangely, he didn't remove his home address and phone number from this entry.)

Bwaahahah, nice one Ferris. Pwn3d.

Re:Trollin trollin trollin

[Achromatic1978]

Exactly. He doesn't think /his/ friends and colleagues should be harassed as a result of his actions. Those lamers and their families and colleagues, hell, they're fair game, apparently. Gotta love double standards.

Has there been any verification of his address/phone number (not to suggest anyone try anything against him, but I wouldn't be surprised if his "home phone number" is a voicemail service where he's just going to post verbal threats to his LJ, and if his "home address" is a maildrop).

Hope he has his passport ready

[AaronLawrence]

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.

Re:Hope he has his passport ready

[gatzke]

I actually found some stuff on disclosure of private fact.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.asp x?id=14038&#q14038

Not sure if outing someone or posting their fetish would violate a criminal law, but it apparently makes you liable in civil court, unless you can show the information to be newsworthy.

Pervs outed for going after 14 year old girls shown on 20/20 (US news TV show) would probably be newsworthy, as they are breaking the law.

Actually not so sure on this case now. The story is now newsworthy, but the individuals that had private information published may not be so newsworthy individually. Also, not so sure if this is "highly offensive to a reasonable person." So you like to spank little girls? Sick, but not highly offensive to most people with dead morals thanks to years of MTV.

Well...

[Psychotria]

I see lots of comments like "it's the internet" and "what a bunch of suckers". Although, personally, I'd never respond to something like the story indicates, I feel that the person who released info on the respondants is, indeed, a sociopath. If he was NOT a sociopath, then he'd have some empathy for those who responded; ignoring, or having no, empathy IS (basically) sociopathic behaviour. I hope he gets sued... or better, goes to prison. And to label the whole activity as an "experiment" is ludicrous.

I hate this guy

[rm999]

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:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RFJ ason_CL_Experiment
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.

Re:I hate this guy

[rm999]

In case it's taken down:

The Saga of Jerry and "Wife"

* Official thread

Jerry has already contacted me by e-mail, demanding I remove all traces of him from my post. This appears to be an anonymous reply from him in my LJ: http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410835.html?thread= 7629011#t7629011

Jerry claims he has an open marriage. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

Edit: Update. Jerry and his "wife" contacted me on AIM
Part I: Email conversation with Jerry

From Jerry@emailaddress.com
> You will remove the pictures of me from your stupid craigslist experiment.
> My wife and I have an open relationship, don\'t believe me? Contact her and
> ask her. But you will remove me, you have no right to post this kind of crap
> without first knowing the full details. Here is the bullshit i want you to
> remove: http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410835.html?thread= 7600851..t7600851

From Jason
Why should I?

From Jerry@emailaddress.com
Because I would appreciate it, because my wife and I have an open relationship
and I would never "cheat" on her. Because we play with others to enhance our
own relationship. Because she is fully aware of what goes on. And again
because I'd appreciate it.
I don't want to fight this out with you, I understand why you're doing
this - to husbands that actually cheat, however, I wouldn't do that - my wife
and I are fully participating swingers, now please remove the thread.

From Jason
Well, if anything, this should help you meet MORE people.

From Jerry@emailaddress.com
And it's not the way I want it done. So you have no intentions of removing it
then? That's fine, I'll ignore it and move on with my life.

From Jason
Wait, I thought you were going to sue me?

From Jerry@emailaddress.com
I'll look into all my options, and if I choose legal recourse, it
wouldn't be a
lawsuit. It would be a criminal case, if that didn't work, then I imagine I'd
have to settle for a civil suit. But either way, this is the last time I
communicate with you. I have nothing more to say - by even responding in the
first place I gave you what you want, and that was foolish of me.

Part II: IM Conversation with Jerry

[10:29] JrITadmin69: Just the man I was looking for.
[10:30] RFJason: Hi Jerry. I just replied to your e-mail.
[10:30] JrITadmin69: and i replied to yours
[10:30] JrITadmin69: Look, I understand what you're trying to do with your experiment.
[10:31] JrITadmin69: And I don't take offense, other then that you didn't attempt to get the whole story, and jumped to conclusions.
[10:31] RFJason: I didn't jump to any conclusions.
[10:31] JrITadmin69: And I learned my lesson as well, don't include my face anymore, assuming my wife and i decide to continue with our lifestyle.
[10:31] JrITadmin69: Sure you did, you assumed I was cheating on my

Re:Did you get your Internet connection yesterday.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

That's a spelling-nazi tip, dummy!

Your friend, the Accuracy-Nazi

Re:Legal matter, does not matter...

[rm999]

Too bad he very clearly documented what he did and who he is. He didn't try hiding anything about himself. The fact that it was on the net won't protect him from court.

FYI

[TheLink]

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. ;)

Sociopath is the word

[file-exists-p]

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.

Re:Sociopath is the word

[file-exists-p]

If you are too embarrassed to have others know you do something, do not do it. If you will do it anyway, stop being embarrassed about it.

Why ? Where does this axiom come from ? Who decided it is better for the universe, or more "right" not to have secrets ?

You realize that this statement is your own idea of "how the world should be" ? It is orthogonal to what the vast majority of people think, and wanting to impose it like this guy did is pure fascism.

Wow, one word: egregious

[MrPerfekt]

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.

Missing?

[Omestes]

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.

Re:Missing?

[mpontes]

No, ED was proposed for deletion several times. Here's the right one.

Long short story, ED has a few articles making fun of Wikipedia. One of them was about MONGO, so he decided to use one of his puppets and list the ED article on Wikipedia for deletion. Since lots of wikipedians can't stand satire when they're the target of it, many voted delete. Now, if you're familiar with Wikipedia and look at the AfD, it's obvious that it should have been closed as "No consensus" instead of "Delete", but the admin decided to ignore the votes and get away with his bias. So much for democracy, huh?

It's sad, but not even Wikipedia is free from censorship. If the majority of the Wikipedians don't like or agree with something, it WILL get deleted. All it takes is putting up an AfD and writing "Delete per WP:CNEIAMUP" (Wikipedia: Completely Non-Existant, Irrelevant And Made Up Policy). Being a wikibot is all about linking to WP: policies, make up interpretations for them and pretend they apply to the current article. And of course, you also need double-standards for all those "Shitty Webcomic with 10 hits per day", because webcomics rock!

It's denying information to people "just because". They're not even saving space by deleting the article, the history is still saved. That AfD was just a childish "Ha-ha, we don't like you so we're going to deny information to anyone that happens to be interested in Encyclopedia Dramatica!". Jimbo Wales said, "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.". He should have added "As long as we like that subject."

Experement? Where?

[Zadaz]

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.

It's simple

[malahoo]

Don't say anything to a perfect stranger that you wouldn't say in front of your mom.

What an idiot

[Antony-Kyre]

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.)

Re:What an idiot

[mrchaotica]

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.

No you don't. Not at all, in fact. Why? because he asked for it!

How funny...

[Shads]

... 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

Re:Way to go guy...

[hkmwbz]

Actually, it took a sociopath to publish these things.

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?

Swan Cramming

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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 explains it!

[BeeBeard]

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.

Re:So THAT explains it!

[LarsWestergren]

My self esteem was taking a pretty big hit there, what with my sending pictures of my erect penis to a complete stranger (which is a perfectly reasonable and intelligent thing to do, by the way), and then not getting back a reply. I'm just glad we live in a world where you can do such a thing with absolutely no repercussions, ever.

Yes, it is just awful that consenting adults can get away with things in their private life that you don't approve of. Let's put a stop to that.

Ilegal because of copyright...?

[Catmeat]

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.

Re:Makes you and him about equal, then

[walnutmon]

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.

Poets are shitty

[walnutmon]

Poets Are Shitty
A Haiku by Walnut mon

Poets are shitty,
Pretentious and retarded,
Poets are so gay,

Re:RFJason gets off scot free. And here's why.

[jcr]

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

He lives in my apartment complex!

[Mori Chu]

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?

Re:He lives in my apartment complex!

[Shads]

I'd notify the police the person has received death threats and ask what they suggest... nah, i wouldn't. I'd get one of those nice name plates and post it by door with my first initial and last name. eg: B.Smith. That way yer not responsible if he gets killed, and people who show up know its not his apartment.

Re:He lives in my apartment complex!

[slightlyspacey]

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?

Might I humbly suggest this as a potential solution?

Re:He lives in my apartment complex!

[Per Wigren]

Or maybe this... :)

Re:bit immature isn't it?

[Lord Aurora]

It's the kind of thing you'd expect of highschool students.

You're right. You would expect it from high school students. I would know, as I am one myself.

However, I also attend a class at the local community college, and if the students there are any indication, you would expect it from community college students, as well.

Indeed, from what I gather from the conversations of my older siblings' friends, you would expect it from Ivy League university students, too.

The military functions I've gone to tend to prove that you would expect it from thirty-something soldiers.

I don't even need to explain how you would expect it from talk show hosts.

And popular comedians.

And profesional athletes.

And actors. Actresses.

And, of course, you would expect it from slashdot users in general.

In the end, I'm perfectly ok with the generalization. High school students are immature. Granted. But let's not ignore the huge majority of the rest of the world, who, if technically 'mature' enough to escape being called 'immature,' must just be total faggots altogether.

And the ironic thing is...I just used the word 'faggot' derisively. Touche.

Re:HA HA HA HA HA

[Achromatic1978]

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

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

Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say on the Internet can and will be used against you."

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.

Still funny when google does it?

[ztransform]

.. 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!

Re:Somewhere around 4% of the population

[cocotoni]

Somewhere around 4% of the population 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.

Unfortunately, the situation is much worse for him than 6 psychos. In fact there is now an open season on Jason. With 150 guys with a motive to harm him, there are also other 10'000 male psychopaths of Seattle (4%). They don't have the motive, but they don't need it (they are psychopaths). What they have is the list of 150 other people that will be prime suspects before anyone even thinks of widening the scope of the suspects.

I really hope that no one bent on killing picks this up.

Re:copyright violation?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

How on earth does sending a private mail constitute publication?

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).

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.

Link not work safe!!!

[porkThreeWays]

I found out the hard way =(

You did it wrong

[ari_j]

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.

Terms of Use

[Adm.Wiggin]

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.

we regret to inform

[stinky wizzleteats]

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

Re:HA HA HA HA HA

[NMerriam]

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.

Criminal 2257 Violations 5 years Jail + $25k fine

[quadszilla]

As someone who works in the adult space, I can tell you that what Jason Fortuny did was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2257: Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2257, producers and publishers of a "visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct" are required to keep records showing the ages of the models.

(B), "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated-- (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

While it was designed to stop child pornography, you are required to keep records for everyone whose sexually explicit photos you publish. If you don't, 2257 calls for prison terms up to 5 years and $25k for a single offence. If one of those photos were mine, I would be contacting the Seattle FBI office today for enforcement.

Ooops... about his personal info

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

Re:copyright violation?

[NMerriam]

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).

Re:my thoughts

[An Onerous Coward]

What I'd love to see is someone announcing, "I sent in five responses, using contact information I ripped out of the phone book. Figuring out which men on the list are being framed is an exercise left to the readers."

Re:They deserve it

[An Onerous Coward]

When you say, "They deserve it," what you really mean is, "I believe they deserve it." You may believe it strongly. You may be able to come up with all sorts of valid reasons for that belief. Beliefs are fine.

The guy who pulled this vile stunt went beyond that, by deciding that he had the right to act on his beliefs, to carry out the sentence he believed these poor saps deserved.

His victims behaved stupidly. Nobody is disputing that. But there's too much stupidity in the world to make stupidity alone a punishable offense.

There are lots of people in this discussion who sound like they would be thrilled if Jason Fortuny was discovered bludgeoned to death in a back alley somewhere. I'm probably one of them. But the difference between believing he deserves such treatment, and actually giving him such treatment, is the foundation of a society based on the rule of law.

That is a good sign.

[pavon]

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.

A commercial business does this regularly.

[Animats]

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.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Just sad

[frenchs]

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.

-steve

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

[Forge]

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.

Hah! Bet at least 50% are real & 40% are marr

[queenb**ch]

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

I know this guy personally, yes he's real.

[Speshul_Ted]

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?

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

[rossifer]

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

Re:As an IT manager at a Fortune 500 company

[TWooster]

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.

I'd go King Henry on him.

[CompMD]

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?

Some more info on rfjason...

[suburbancore]

(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.