Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Ashley Madison CTO Threatens Libel Suit Against Journalist
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.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
I'd love to see under what legal theory that reporting facts could be considered libelous or defamatory.
It's been twelve years since it was coined, and yet it's unbelievable that people STILL haven't heard of the Streisand effect.
Trying to shut someone up in this age just makes the information spread much faster and wider. I wouldn't have heard of this at all if the lawsuit wasn't threatened.
I can't wait to see those AM twats get cross-examined.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Seriously, it's only a half-step above running a brothel.
A brothel is at least an honest business.
I've listened to Handel on the Law a lot. Isn't the truth an absolute defense when it comes to libel/slander suits?
If I was Krebs, I would request my attorney send a letter to Bhatia's lawyer stating that since those Emails consist of a confession to Federal level hacking charges against a US corporation that he is required by law to make the information as public as possible, especially to such agencies as the DOJ and FBI (and whatever the equivalent Canadian authorities are), and that by definition there is no liable (at least in the US, the article does state that Canada's liable laws are different). Then follow up on that threat and actually forward all information to those agencies (and nerve.com) for review.
There's a huge market in China!
You really think so? I've heard that brothel customers keep getting screwed.
The lawyer's letter lays out his position. We don't the facts, but here's his position, which may be reasonable g
The letter to Krebs says that in the very emails Krebs relied on, the former CTO explicitly said that he did NOT download the account database. He said there is a clear vulnerability so someone COULD download the database, and he did not do so. The Krebs article appears to suggest that he did, so the Krebs article might be misrepresenting what is actually said in the emails.
The letter also seeks to distinguish between noticing a readily apparent vulnerability vs "hacking" the web site. Those are kind of two degrees of the same thing, but Krebs said "hacked". If the truth is more like "noticed", a retraction is in order.
Lastly, thr letter seeks to clarify that he was not AM's CTO, or even working for AM, at the time. Reading the article one might well get the impression that AM's CTO, on behalf of AM, hacked a competitor. That's not factually correct, the lawyer says.
Which is more than you can say for Ashley Madison customers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
do you all remember an article that described a certain Indian class of individuals have claimed the right to lie, cheat, steal, and engage in dishonest practices to (supposedly further their advancement. This was based on the notion that individuals in their culture have been do depraved, "shit on", etc. Because of such atrocities committed, they have the right.
I wonder if this episode could be attributed to that statement and thus that type of behavior. I wonder what cultural connections this may tie back to..
I am not a racist, I believe in equality for all, when appropriate. But when public statements are made like the one i described above, seem to surface in the way people conduct themselves at a global/trusted level, its had to ignore the correlation..
Requesting to be stood corrected if necessary, or if my assertion is flawed..
Otherwise thank you
This dude works in tech - a CTO, well, assuming he's actually involved in tech, not some 'business' CTO - and thinks that this is a good idea. He's basically murdering his own reference for the future, nobody wants a bunk ass CTO who doesn't understand the internet or world at large, and has his name smeared all over (yada yada Streisand effect yada yada) but the bottom line is this: if you do shady shit, and get busted, there is to be no expectation of silence by anyone...once it's out, it explodes and that's fucking it. Touching it just makes the explosion bigger. "Lawyers", yeh I'm sure his lawyers are loving it - when they offer advice and "yeh, lets file a suit!" - they're just securing their own monetary gain...because obviously this whole thing blowing up just creates a larger vortex to funnel this fucktards money into.
Yeah, IANAL, but this isn't a court. Things don't need to be admissible to be used by private citizens. It doesn't matter how you got the information, it's only libel if it's false and you had no reason to believe it was true when you said it (basically, if you just said it for the lulz). Also, its only defamatory if the primary purpose of the statement was to publicly attack someone. If the primary purpose (as here) was to expose a business practice, and your reputation just happens to get slaughtered in the process, then maybe you shouldn't have been working for a shitty company.