Slashdot Mirror
$74k Judgment Against Craigslist Prankster
jamie points out an update in the case of Jason Fortuny, the Craigslist prankster who was sued last year for publicly posting responses to a fake personal ad. The Citizen Media Law Project's summary of his case now includes a recently entered default judgment (PDF), fining Fortuny "... in the amount of $35,001.00 in statutory damages for Count I, violation of the Copyright Act; $5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion." He has also been ordered to pay more than $34,000 in attorney and court fees.
"$5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion."
These are actually real laws?!?!?
Yes. In fact you are not allowed to disclose publicly that your girlfriend has clamps even if half of the town knows this anyways.
There was a highest court decision in 1912 in Felderman vs. Proppenheimer, the so called "smelly labia" case (today it's called the "fishoil" case for PC reasons).
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Publication of non-newsworthy, private facts about an individual that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (true defamation)(so intimate that outrage the public's sense of decency).
Intrusion Upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
I buy it. The guy posts a personal ad, then publicly posts the responses he gets. The responders had a reasonable expectation of privacy and it was violated in a most offensive manner. Seems like a lot of money, but maybe it will teach this douchebag a lesson.
Now I can send my naked pictures with no fear...
This is exactly what I thought would happen, a large civil judgement, as I predicted in the original linked /. thread. Repeat after me: I do not own the content of letters I receive.. Letters you are sent are exactly like books you buy; you can keep them forever and read them all you want and even loan them to your friends, but you cannot publish them. This is an entirely non-controversial no-brainer in legal circles, no matter how silly you think it is, and it's why the guy got slammed. The extra helping of privacy violation is just icing on the copyright cake, and of course he gets the bill for feeding the lawyers too.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a Default Judgement, which means the plaintiff did not show. That is why he lost, not because there was a thorough review of the matter at hand.
Somehow I doubt this will be valid as a precedent in future lawsuits.
Yes, and rightfully so. A little Googling:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.aspx?id=14038&
Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." ... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. ... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
http://epic.org/privacy/boyer/
Intrusion Upon Seclusion. Intrusion upon seclusion occurs where there is an invasion, through conduct offensive to an ordinary person, of an individual's information in which she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Amy Boyer's estate argues that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her address and social security number, and that Docusearch's action in indiscriminately releasing this information was reasonably offensive.
So basically private information of yours that nobody has any right to should never be published openly unless you can show a public interest angle. That's totally reasonable in my book.
Nick
Because the guy went entirely too far. If he had posted anonymous copies of comments they had sent etc then it probably would have been tolerable as an 'experiment'. However, he posted photos, names, emails etc. - which is fairly brutal when shared on the net
On the over hand though, regardless of the false pretense, these people gave their data to him, and took a calculated risk as to whether the ad was genuine or not. It's not as if the data was stolen or anything. So it's a bit iffy, but overall, I'd say a good judgement
Again, though, a classified ads site is not the same thing as a web forum. If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly? No. That's what expectations are all about. It doesn't matter that he CAN post them publicly. If you follow your logic then there is no such thing as privacy. I could be having a "private" conversation with you, but be secretly recording it and then post it on the internet.
That's what we're talking about here, whether you can reasonably expect certain communications to be private or not. Personally, I would rather have the law say that there is such a thing as privacy than in your alternate universe where nothing is private.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Good.
This little turd is only starting starting to get what he deserves.
Personally, I am impressed that the individual wronged took him to court. If I had his name and address, I would have probably been a lot less gentle. People have been taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet to get away with completely unacceptable behavior for too long.
Human beings are social creatures and the defective ones need to be corrected or weeded out.
I can't say I sympathise with that bloke much. He posted an ad, and the people who responded to it did so under the assumption that it would be confidential. Not the smartest assumption, but a reasonable one nontheless.
Then, he posts the responses, including names. While this doesn't hurt him much, it can easily lead to great embarrassment and potential destruction of reputation for those men.
Regardless of what one thinks of the activities the guys thought they were responding to (sounded weird to me, but I'm a bit of a boring prude), the guy who posted people's identities is an asshat, and I can't say I feel much, or really any sympathy for him. He sounds like little more than an asshat.
On a related note, I hope the asses who post those "feel free to come and take all my stuff" ads on Craigslist, that result in people's houses being stripped down to nothingness, also get sued. Those who respond to them and steal the poor bastard's items, too.
When these laws were passed, their may not have been any internet, web sites or forums, but there were newspapers, notice boards, newsletters, circulars and mailing lists, and telegraphs. An individual-to-individual communication is expected to remain exactly that, unless the person sending the information gives permission for the information to be made public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violation_of_privacy
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR SILICITOR
Good day sirs. I hope that I find you well. I am Mr. GAMBO ADAMS. I am the one that contacted you from NIGERIA in the business of wishing to transfer you your country a fund of $30,000,000 ( THIRTY MILLION US DOLLARS), for which I was willing to alow you with a 20% transfer fee $1,500, 000 (ONE POINT 5 MILLION US DOLLARS). You reasponded with a promise to complete this transaction. But you only promised and promised for months and months! I did everything you asked, including of the pictures of me holding a sign with sayings on it. I have since realized you are a SPAM BATER! Also you have put all of our PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL communication on your webs site.
I am conacting you now on behalf of my silicitor that I will be courting you on VIOLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS and INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION in the US courts, and searching for damages in the amount of $35,001.00 (THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND AND ONE US DOLLARS) and courst fees. Against the adversity of my silictor I am willing to settle in the amount of only $10,001.00 (TEN THOUSAND AND ONE USE DOLLARS) if you contact me IMIEDIATELY to deposit the amount in my account #3200-20032-20002 in the BANK OF NIGERIA. If you aggree to my generous proposal, please reply promptly.
Yours in friendship,
Mr. GAMBO ADAMS
"Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public [oddstrument.com]. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable for broadcasting your public information to the world,"
Yes, obviously.
"So what if i make an email address that forwards your email verbatim to an email list? Is that the same..."
Yes, obviously.
You set up an ad that claims a particular contact method is a way to initiate a private person-to-person contact. Someone foolishly trust you. Saying, "Sucker! You should have known I might be a lying douchebag" doesn't make you not a lying douchebag.