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.
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.
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.
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.
Which is more than you can say for Ashley Madison customers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
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.