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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.)"

Responses

[Anonymous Coward]

RFJason_CL_Experiment

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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: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: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...

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.

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!

[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: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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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. :)

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.

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

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