Sex Baiting Prank on Craigslist Affects Hundreds - Internet Drama Approved

[Farid]

Link

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 (warning: not safe for work) in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in. Like Simon's experiment, the response was immediate. He wrote, "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 (kinda like Wikipedia for web fads and Internet drama). Read the responses (warning: sexually explicit material).

Instantly, commenters on the LiveJournal thread started identifying the men. Dissenters emailed the guys to let them know they were scammed. Several of them were married, which has led to what will likely be the first of many separations. One couple in an open marriage begged that their information be removed, as their religious family and friends weren't aware of their lifestyle. Another spotted a fellow Microsoft employee, based on their e-mail address. And it's really just the beginning, since the major search engines haven't indexed these pages yet. After that, who knows? Divorces, firings, lawsuits, and the assorted hell that come from having your personal sex life listed as the first search result for your name.

Possibly the strangest thing about this sex baiting prank is that the man behind it is unabashedly open about his own identity. A graphic artist in Kirkland, Washington, Jason has repeatedly posted his contact information, including home phone, address, and photos. He's already received one threat of physical violence. Is he oblivious to the danger, or does he just not care? Since his stated interest is "pushing people's buttons," I'm guessing the latter. (See update: Jason's been removing contact information from his sites, so some of these links are now broken.)

Legality and Privacy
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.

"Another spotted a fellow Microsoft employee" now we know why Vista is so late on schedule.

The internets never fail when it comes to drama.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Oh, OH that is a good one Vy. Thank you so much for the great intraweb soap opera that is about to unfold!

 

[Guden Oden]

While I feel that people who wish to 'dominate' others sexually are sick bastards, I have to say this was an unusually unfriendly thing to do, to say the least. I hope the guy who started this gets sued to hell and back (and considering he exposed 170+ people, chances are statistically very high that's exactly what's going to happen). What an a-hole!

'Liking to push people's buttons' is admitting outright to enjoy being an a-hole, and such people are even more contemptible than sick perverse sexual freaks like (S&M) dominance practicioners. THAT is at least on a voluntary basis, unlike what this guy did.

 

[_xxx_]

Nothing wrong with domination etc. if both sides are into what's being played. Releasing private stuff on the net is nothing but a crime. Someone should THOROUGHLY spank him. With a whip and all.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Nothing wrong with domination etc. if both sides are into what's being played. Releasing private stuff on the net is nothing but a crime. Someone should THOROUGHLY spank him. With a whip and all.

Both people agreeing something doesn't mean that neither person is screwed up psychologically. I would argue that if you want to be dominated, you've got issues. Or, for example, suppose I'm depressed and pay a hit man to kill me. The mutual consent doesn't imply that there's nothing wrong with what's going on upstairs on my end...or his end. But that's all depending on how you define "issues," which is pretty much entirely relativistic these days. The ancient Romans obviously didn't think so ill of pedophilia, so...

 

[_xxx_]

Flowed logic there. I'm not talking about extreme stuff like pedophilia or someone getting seriously hurt/murdered.

If someone likes to get his arse spanked or such though, I've no problem with that whatsoever.

Besides, being screwed or not, noone is allowed to post someone's personal stuff without the agreement from the person concerned. And definitely not in such a sneaky way.

And I'm not into S/M, mind you. But I think everyone's privacy concerning such matters should be respected.

 

[hey69]

XXX exactly my thoughts. if you want to be a pervert or a sexmaniac , thats your choice (and it isnt illegal)
anyway, I dont see the added value of the guy posting all the private stuff of these people..


some people get killed for less

 

[Tim Murray]

Both people agreeing something doesn't mean that neither person is screwed up psychologically.

It also doesn't mean that at least one of them is.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

snakes in the grass everywhere. seems to be a favorite pastime of MANY americans (at least, dunno about elsewhere). Just the sort of people i've learned to avoid. it doesn't matter what 'positive' aspects there are to someone of that type's 'personality'. that one, all by itself, is a fatal flaw in my book. pretty sad who i've found i share this country with.

 

[Gubbi]

While I feel that people who wish to 'dominate' others sexually are sick bastards, I have to say this was an unusually unfriendly thing to do, to say the least. I hope the guy who started this gets sued to hell and back (and considering he exposed 170+ people, chances are statistically very high that's exactly what's going to happen). What an a-hole!

And they will lose, unless the guys behind the scam promised confidentiality, they won't have much of a case.

The spankers solicited of their own free will after all.

Cheers

 

[_xxx_]

pretty sad who i've found i share this country with.

Don't worry, the rest of the world is pretty much the same kind.

 

[Guden Oden]

And they will lose, unless the guys behind the scam promised confidentiality, they won't have much of a case.

The spankers solicited of their own free will after all.

Where in the law is it stated that you lose all rights of confidentiality unless explicitly expressed?

Quite the opposite, I would think the law would agree that if you have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality (such as when replying to what appears to be a contact ad), then that's what you're entitled to.

Imagine 170 guys walk into a store called "kick-in-the-nads store", and just inside the door is a guy kicking everyone in the nads as they enter. Can they sue? They walked into the store voluntarily.

 

[Npl]

Where in the law is it stated that you lose all rights of confidentiality unless explicitly expressed?

Copyright law is that you can always quote people with reference to the source (so you cant put it out of context). AFAIK even the various "you cant reproduce this content in any way" disclaimers dont change that.

Quite the opposite, I would think the law would agree that if you have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality (such as when replying to what appears to be a contact ad), then that's what you're entitled to.

confidentiality and privacy are subjective. Thats why the rules are explicitly stated whenever you send information to "serious" sites

Imagine 170 guys walk into a store called "kick-in-the-nads store", and just inside the door is a guy kicking everyone in the nads as they enter. Can they sue? They walked into the store voluntarily.

Theres not much to question about physical harm. But if you get kicked in the nuts in an public place (like a park or library) and someone filmed it, he can legally send his "funny video" to whoever he likes, even if you protest.

IMHO the scam itself could be considered as harming persons, making the answers public alone is no issue in itself, BUT it would affect the scam as it amplifies the harm done.

Whatever the law says, that guy is an asshole and should be dealt with appropiate (how about having to fullfill the promises in the scam - 178 times ? )

 

[ZoinKs!]

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmm"

snakes in the grass everywhere. seems to be a favorite pastime of MANY americans (at least, dunno about elsewhere). Just the sort of people i've learned to avoid. it doesn't matter what 'positive' aspects there are to someone of that type's 'personality'. that one, all by itself, is a fatal flaw in my book. pretty sad who i've found i share this country with.

I can't tell if you're talking about the guy who posted the add or the people who responded to it.

 

[LunchBox]

I'm quite curious if I knew anyone from that list of people that sent pics...