Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ex-Ashley Madison CTO Threatens Libel Suit Against Journalist

Posted by Soulskill on from the somebody-doesn't-know-about-the-streisand-effect dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Security reporter Brian Krebs, who has been instrumental in breaking news about the Ashley Madison hack, is now being threatened by the website's former CTO with a libel suit. Contained in the leaked data was a series of emails from the ex-CTO, Raja Bhatia, to the CEO of Ashley Madison's parent company. In the emails, Bhatia noted a security hole in a competing website, saying that he downloaded their user database and was capable of modifying and exposing it. After reporting on these emails, Krebs received a letter from Bhatia's lawyer (PDF) saying the post was libelous and defamatory. They demanded a retraction, which Krebs is thus far unwilling to do.

6 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. IANAL, but... by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've listened to Handel on the Law a lot. Isn't the truth an absolute defense when it comes to libel/slander suits?

    1. Re:IANAL, but... by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not in Canada and most non-US common law countries.

      Actually, truth is a defense against libel/slander in Canada, but the burden of proof is somewhat different in Canada than in the U.S. In Canada, it is often up to the defendant to proof that what they're saying is true, whereas in the U.S., the plaintiff must prove the statements false. In the U.K., sometimes truth isn't even a defense at all!

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  2. Re:Uh, okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Laugh if you want to, but there are jurisdictions, even in well developed, non-dictator ruled countries where truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges. All the prosecution have to do is prove damages. It's then up to the jury to decide whether the common interest weighs heavier on the scales than the damages caused.

  3. Re:Uh, okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    How's that working for ya, Hillary!?

    Just fine, it's being determined she did nothing illegal. Not sure we can say the same about this Ashley Madison guy yet.

  4. Re:Uh, okay by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    there are jurisdictions, even in well developed, non-dictator ruled countries where truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges.

    ... and one of those is Canada, where AM is based, and where this lawsuit is being filed. In America, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. Under Canadian Defamation Law, it is not. The defendant can be found liable for damages, whether the accusations are true or not. Also, under Canadian defamation law, the defendant is presumed guilty, and has the onus of proving their statements were harmless.

  5. Re:Uh, okay by sabri · · Score: 5, Informative

    and one of those is Canada, where AM is based, and where this lawsuit is being filed. In America, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. Under Canadian Defamation Law, it is not.

    First, no lawsuit is being filed. A lawyer just sent a warning letter.

    Second, Canadian Defamation Laws do not apply to a U.S. newspaper. So why should they apply to a U.S. journalist, writing on a website written in and hosted in the U.S. by a U.S. company (Akamai)?

    Third, even if the idiot can get a Canadian judgement against the U.S. person, that judgement must first go through the U.S. court system in order to be enforceable.

    So, all in all, the guy can scream whatever he wants, but all he is achieving is invoking the Streisand Effect.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.