Controversy Erupts Over Craigslist Prank 674
An anonymous reader writes to mention something of an ongoing controversy over a recent Craigslist prank. Waxy.org has the full details: "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 in another area, reposted it to Craigslist Seattle, and waited for the responses to roll in ... '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." The Wired blog 27B Stroke 6 has analysis of the prank, which author Ryan Singel views as 'sociopathic'. He then follows that up with responses to comments from his analysis, with further exploration of the weighty issues this juvenile prank has brought up.
It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
Prank yes, sociopathic possibly, may get some people to think a bit more before giving away potentially embarrassing or expensive data, priceless.
What a pathetic little asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
And to do this just to get your 15 minutes of internet fame is incredibly pathetic. What an asshole.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
They did not understand how the internet works?
They did not publish their personal information on some website, they sent it to someone who had published an ad in a suitable forum! This has nothing to do with "how the internet works" but is all about "how people work"!
Of course I would not send my real name, official email-address and such in response to an ad, but this has nothing to do with me being a nerd, but with knowing that there are truly stupid people out there.
Exchange the Genders... (Score:1, Insightful)
Men have sat back and allowed this sickening double standard of male sexuality bad/female sexuality good stigma to permeate our current culture.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that there should be no expectation of privacy regarding information that is published on the web. However, this was *not* published on the web, and I think there is an implied expectation of privacy regarding personal communications (eaves-droppers notwithstanding).
You're right, in that some of these people were perhaps a little foolish to supply personal contact details quite so readily, but that doesn't excuse the guy who did this. I'm certainly not a psychologist, but this guy pretty much fits my personal, layman's definition of sociopath, as he clearly has zero empathy or respect for the people he did this to.
bit immature isn't it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Same as the old world (Score:2, Insightful)
But is it really that bad? For the consumer, it has opened up new doors to media access. Now the average music consumer is no longer beholden to the record companies for their fix. Instead they can go online and download anything they want immediately, quickly, and privately. They just hop on a network and the media is there for consumption. However, this presents a problem for the record companies who have a vested interest in not letting this data out of their control.
The problem for the record companies is that if they want people to access the data, it requires that they either trust their customers or they lock down the data so that customers can't use the data freely. Is this so unlike the need to keep personal information private?
So what we have here in the CL prank is people scrambling over themselves to demand that private information be kept private, but these same people would have you believe that other entities (like record companies) should be forced to adapt to a changing information landscape where any information is easily sought and accessed and spread. The double standard is horrendous.
Did you get your Internet connection yesterday...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? They sent naked pictures of themselves to an unknown person on the Internet...(!)
You have heard of the Internet, right? It's famous for publishing things that people don't want other people to see.
The only people who'll be "staggared" by this are tiny minded newbies who have no idea of how the world works...
(...and lawyers who are offering to sue the person responsible, but they're only pretending to be "staggared" so they can get at the money)
Re:They deserve it (Score:1, Insightful)
It's so easy to be on your high horse, but the fact is, you should not be. These people, even the ones who were adulterous, do not deserve this level of outrage. They will have to deal with this for the next 70 years. As though they committed murder!
Any employer who googles these people ten years from now will see this.
Worse, most of these people do not evince anything implying they are married. They aren't using their employer's email either.
Some of these guys are committing minor offenses, but most aren't doing anything wrong at all.
They will be punished for this forever. Many attempting to get their pictures and names removed, explaining they weren't dishonoring a spouse or anything like that, are subjected to even further ridicule.
Lastly, the criminal who did this exclaims repeatedly that he did this to them with the explicit intent to cause them pain and suffering. He succeeded. Why buy into that? Why endorse it? Why defend something that has harmed many because a few deserved something bad, but nothing nearly this bad? Because you are a total creep?
Of course.
Re:What a pathetic little asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
And the arrogant little wanker is not exactly hard to find. I would not be surprised to read that he ends up suffering some form of retribution over this stunt; legal, physical, or otherwise. The little asshole thought it was funny to spread the respondents' personal info over the net, but now he is working overtime trying to remove his data.
I expect this will affect his business. Character matters, and we've gotten a good view of his. Yes, the respondents should have used better judgement, but that does not excuse his actions.
Hope he has his passport ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, it's alarming to see the division in the responders: a HUGE percentage who think that it's OK or even cool, for various reasons. These people are themselves somewhat sociopathic. Some of them are obviously kids, but others are not, and those are scary.
"They were married" - well, a few of them were. What about the other 150?
"These guys are cruising for sex" - not a crime. Not even morally wrong for many people.
"They used work addresses" - only a few of them.
"They responded to a public posting" - but by private email.
"Email is not private" - but you still can't post other people's private information in public without their permission. Yes, there really are laws about that. No, the "internet" doesn't make it different. Yes, there are ethical and social reasons as well.
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RF
search for Part I: Email conversation with Jerry
also look at parts ii and iii
He has no empathy, and he is clearly trying to humiliate these people. Given the large number of people he angered (whose lives may be ruined because of it) and his very public profile, I am guessing he is going to have to go into hiding soon. In addition to a lack of empathy, he has a lack of common sense.
Re:Legal matter, does not matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sociopath is the word (Score:5, Insightful)
In his responses, the guy is arguing with a kind of rethoric that completely ignores the importance of social image, social relations, and more globally social existence. Because those concepts are alien to him, he can not grasp how much harm he has caused.
Hopefully he will be sued. Maybe he will still do not understand what he did wrong, but he at least will understand that he did something wrong that he should not do again.
Re:Welcome to the new world (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say on the Internet can and will be used against you. You have the right to speak to an attorney, but he can't help you take back what you said on the Internet. Nobody can.
Wow, one word: egregious (Score:5, Insightful)
This also brings up a good point about meeting people with particular "interests" online. Say I like feet. I don't. But say I did and I want to find people with the same interest as mine. The Internet is probably where I'd turn. It's not like you can go to Starbucks and start randomly asking people. Now, this guy finds foot fetishes objectionable and outs me. I'm not doing anything illegal but I'm sure my employer would look differently at me for knowing despite having an obligation to not do that. It's all about impressions and what you know about someone. You can't forget something like that. That's why people keep those things to themselves.
So long story, short. I read what this guy posted. I read what the submissions were. I read how this guy is acting after the fact. He's his own moral sheriff apparently. Which is pretty lame considering there's alot of terrorists running about out there doing the same thing only instead of humiliation, they prefer death. So, it all goes back to: yes, you have a right to do something (and in this case, maybe not even then) but that doesn't mean you _should_ do it.
What I think about what these people like to say to their sexual partners is irrelevant and it should be irrelevant to you to. If you feel otherwise, then you're just trying to play an authority figure and "stick it" to these people.
Treat people like you'd want to be treated. This guy is just a douche bag.
Experement? Where? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since he doesn't mention this on his wiki, I'll draw a conclusion:
He's an idiot that thought it would be fun to prank some people he thought were deviants.
I agree that people need a wake up call to get to not blindly trust anyone with an email address, but this is just preying on the weak. People looking for a hookup on the Internet? They should be rewarded for putting it out there not raked over the coals as perverts.
It's simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand perfectly how personal communication works. Perhaps you have problems with "common decency" and "trust"?
There is no expectation of privacy for stuff you freely give away to a freaking stranger you don't even know.
There is an implied level of trust in this sort of thing. From the point of view of the respondents, they are replying to a like-minded individual who is advertising in an appropriate forum. This trust has been abused. No law has been broken, it's true, but it's a pretty reprehensible thing to do. I agree in my original comment that sending such personal contact details in an initial contact is perhaps naive, but that's still no excuse for this guy's actions.
but when you send me nude pics of your beautiful 300 lb naked self, you have no right to tell me what to do with them.
Nice ad hominem - so this behaviour is acceptable because the people caught out by it are ugly? Well, they must be, right? They use a personals site.
No, you have no right to tell someone what to do with a picture you send them - although you are of course free to *request* that they treat it with a little respect. Again, there is an expected behaviour in this situation, and this guy violated that expectation. He knew how most of these people would feel, and didn't care - he was in fact counting on it, that was the whole point. In my book, that makes him a bad person. Does it matter? Not really, but it does help make the world that little bit less of a nice place. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think it's better to be nice to people than unnecessarily nasty.
These perverts are probably mostly married and looking for a fling and they deserve what they get.
Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter - this sort of activity contravenes your personal morality, and so it's ok for them to be treated in this way. You have no evidence that any of these people were married - although I concede that some of them probably are. Of those, of course, some will have the explicit permission of their partner, who may even be expecting to participate. Of the ones who are cheating on their partner, fine, perhaps they did get what they deserved. The rest, however, most certainly did not, no matter how perverted you may personally find their particular sexual preferences.
Re:The jokes on you! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Who is being fooled here, exactly? There is certainly the possibility that
1. Mr. Fortuny made up all the responses, to get publicity (which he indeed did).
or
2. Many of the responses were made up by whoever sent them. Just like Mr. Fortuny made up a fake listing for fun, other people may have sent fake responses for fun.
In other words, what verification do we have that the posted information is real? None whatsoever.
Re:Way to go guy... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's wrong with being a "pervert"? As long as you aren't hurting anyone, it should be fine. Does one lose one's rights just because one's secuality does not match yours?
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
People do this through the mail, people do this through email. Hell, con artists have tricked people into doing this since cavemen were banging each other on the heads with clubs. Whatever way it occurs, it's the same thing.
Ilegal because of copyright...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, isn't republishing them without permission a copyright violation?
*Opportunity left open for silly puns in follow-up comments.
Re:Makes you and him about equal, then (Score:3, Insightful)
Eye for an eye, I suppose.
Really, the problem with what he did was that it had no point. It was just an attempt to embarrass people, and give their identity out to others. There is nothing comming out of this other than hassles for him in his life. I don't know how he could not have seen that comming.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:2, Insightful)
Trust? Why don't you let me borrow your car, since you think you can trust total strangers with nudie pics of yourself.
Implied trust? No EULA, no contract, no binding trust. To send naked pictures of yourself to a stranger as an initial contact is not naive, it is stupid beyond belief.
Humor. My bad, I forgot we were on
Did any of the personal emails request the dude not post the naked pictures? The dude is a bad person because he outed some perverts? Anything online should be treated as totally in public. Don't like it? Use an alias or lots of encryption. I have no problem with what they are doing, but people need to know that others can easily find out stuff you don't want online.
I grew up with finger, and nerds never freaked out about people knowing "I am in the computer lab at 4:00 AM again". Want privacy, take the steps to ensure privacy. Sending naked pics by an inital email to a stranger is stupid, and people need to realize that.
Re:He lives in my apartment complex! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can't tell the difference between those two things then I'm not sure there's any point continuing this debate, but still...
I give everyone a default level of trust, until and unless they do something to either increase or decrease that level of trust. For what it's worth, I wouldn't send random strangers nude pictures of myself either, or give them contact details I couldn't ditch without issue (eg throwaway email address).
Implied trust? No EULA, no contract, no binding trust.
No, no binding trust; just an assumed level of common decency and honesty that was clearly lacking in this case.
Humor. My bad, I forgot we were on
That's the problem with a purely textual medium; humour can be very hard to spot at times, especially given the level of maturity of some people here (who would consider that a valid reason).
The dude is a bad person because he outed some perverts?
You should choose your words more carefully then; pervert is rather emotive, and is almost only ever used in a negative sense.
I grew up with finger, and nerds never freaked out about people knowing "I am in the computer lab at 4:00 AM again".
I grew up with finger, but finger doesn't invite you to contact it under false pretences then post personal information of the sort the vast majority of people would not want published in that way to a heavily-visited website.
No offence, but your analogies suck. I'm not even really disagreeing that these people were unwise to give out that sort of information on first contact with a complete stranger, but two wrongs don't make a right. The guy is a dick, plain and simple. If he carries on behaving in this fashion, eventually he's going to piss off the wrong person and things are going to turn very nasty. As much as these people need to learn to be a little less free with their personal info, this guy needs to learn that.
Re:bit immature isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. You would expect it from high school students. I would know, as I am one myself.
However, I also attend a class at the local community college, and if the students there are any indication, you would expect it from community college students, as well.
Indeed, from what I gather from the conversations of my older siblings' friends, you would expect it from Ivy League university students, too.
The military functions I've gone to tend to prove that you would expect it from thirty-something soldiers.
I don't even need to explain how you would expect it from talk show hosts.
And popular comedians.
And profesional athletes.
And actors. Actresses.
And, of course, you would expect it from slashdot users in general.
In the end, I'm perfectly ok with the generalization. High school students are immature. Granted. But let's not ignore the huge majority of the rest of the world, who, if technically 'mature' enough to escape being called 'immature,' must just be total faggots altogether.
And the ironic thing is...I just used the word 'faggot' derisively. Touche.
Re:So THAT explains it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is just awful that consenting adults can get away with things in their private life that you don't approve of. Let's put a stop to that.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
I just have to say, I'm glad I don't do much work in that area of the country. Because, if I was ever asked if Mr. Fortuny should be hired, recommended, or even considered for a position; I'd have to state unequivocally, that I consider him to be untrustworthy, egotistical, uncaring, and highly likely to violate any private and or confidential data and materials, regardless of any policies he may have agreed to. He may be great at his job, but I, for one, would never recommend him.
I imagine as an independent contractor in the web and networking business, that he's put his livelihood in jeopardy. Cause, I'm betting that as much as the arrogant responses of the youthful looking to draw blood are commenting on his efforts; individuals and companies more likely to pay for the privilege of his service will feel a great deal more hesitation--despite any agreement that they may or may not have on the morality of the responders.
I hope that there are at least of few respondents willing to press civil charges against him (I'm not certain if any criminal charges can be brought).
Re:Trollin trollin trollin (Score:3, Insightful)
Has there been any verification of his address/phone number (not to suggest anyone try anything against him, but I wouldn't be surprised if his "home phone number" is a voicemail service where he's just going to post verbal threats to his LJ, and if his "home address" is a maildrop).
Re:HA HA HA HA HA (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably you'd have no problem with your wife writing a tell-all expose on your most depraved sexual fantasies and other pillowtalk without your knowledge or consent?
Two points (Score:2, Insightful)
What I love about /.'ers is the giant screamfest you guys put out over the government and business abusing private information gained through nefarious means but soon as the masses do it ... it's ok. Hypocritical IMO. Which brings me to my second point ...
You have the right to speak to an attorney, but he can't help you take back what you said on the Internet. Nobody can
Ok we all know the information cannot be taken back. That's nice. But how do we know these people that responded are really those people's photographs and backgrounds? Physical possession does not equal authentication.
What would the author have to gain from "outing" some of these people? Remember that question about who gains you guys always ask of government? Perhaps you should apply it here. I'm not saying all of them are part of some grand fake. But one of the people [encycloped...matica.com] "outed" was the husband of a community moderator that the prankster was banned from. And a moderator from Encyclopedia Dramatica took joy in telling the wife moderator what had happened. That seems a little too coincidental.
Let's also talk about the provenance [wikipedia.org] of all this. Why is that thousands of people on the net automatically assume that the information provided to them out of nowhere is true? You guys should check out the Encyclopedia Dramatica history [encycloped...matica.com]. That's an awful lot of people working on an article that supposedly came from one person. It's also a lot of people with an axe to grind against certain people. It's not like the after-analysis of the raw information is objective.
Lastly, but oh so aftmostly, let us talk of the prankster himself. This story was linked too yesterday on MeFi. Some of the people on that thread found some embarrasing material on the prankster as well. Like bad poetry and so on. Guess what? He took them down after people started linking too it. So not only do you have a guy who gets a kick out of publishing people's private information but he's against his own being published as well.
Re:What a pathetic little asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
True.. I'd say a good analogy that might make people sit up a bit is if the ad was from a white woman looking for black men for sex, then post the replies and see what kind of civil liberties issues kick up a major furore. It pointless to speculate further though - you're right the guy is an unpleasant person, immature in his acts (it does seem like a childish prank - something adults will grow out of as they learn other people exist as entities like themselves and deserve to be treated like themselves).
The thing I take away from this is the number of responses to the article that say he was right to do what he did - the world is a nasty place as it is, in *my* naivete, I would like to think that the online community is filled with the better, more intelligent, more sensible and decent group of society. Shows how wrong I can be sometimes.
Re:Sociopath is the word (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are too embarrassed to have others know you do something, do not do it. If you will do it anyway, stop being embarrassed about it.
Why ? Where does this axiom come from ? Who decided it is better for the universe, or more "right" not to have secrets ?
You realize that this statement is your own idea of "how the world should be" ? It is orthogonal to what the vast majority of people think, and wanting to impose it like this guy did is pure fascism.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
People simply let go all safeguards when going online. Why, I don't know, but they do.
Re:Somewhere around 4% of the population (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope that no one bent on killing picks this up.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for this dude, and any hypothetical person interested in revealing my hypothetical purchase in a hypothetical sex toy with hypothetical accoutrements, it's against the law. Ditto for the Craig's List advertisement. Whether or not it was stupid for me to buy Secret of Mana from some party I didn't know is completely moot. It would be moot if it were a sex toy or a set of monkey bars (playground equipment) or a new duvet cover. It would be moot if I were answering an advert for a local flag football league or for a roommate. A court would probably throw out a frivolous case of me suing you for exposing my need to cover my down comforter with a duvet cover because the fucking cat sheds all the fuck over it and makes it icky furry. After all, a dude owning a duvet cover, while something to possibly snicker about, is not exactly going to have an actual harmful effect on my life. But god help you if you make it impossible for employment because I engaged in conversation, in good faith, with someone advertising for others in a slave/master relationship. That could keep me from getting a job, and, as exposing that information is illegal for you in the first place, and as it probably just cost me a whole lot of money over the course of my life, just cost *you* a lot of money in lawsuit damages to make up for it.
Personally, I hope this dude gets sued for every last cent these guys lose. And if they can make a case for pain and suffering (not too hard to see, since they may lose their marriages -- i agree that they're scumbags, but, just as it's not legal to kill all jerkface fuckers, being a scumbag doesn't automatically preclude you from protection under the law), then I hope he has to pony that up to. All in all, I hope this guy's life is ruined, just like he ruined theirs.
What's the moral of this story? Don't be an idiot. I think we all agree that many (most?) of those responding to the advertisement were being incredibly stupid. But so was the dude busting their balls. Through multiple acts of idiocy, we're probably going to end up with a whole host of guys who just ruined their lives. I don't think it would be a stretch to say a few could commit suicide after everything collapses in on them. Or at least become raging alcoholics. How is that a benefit to us? It isn't. So in the long run, don't be an idiot. Just as a girl who dresses like a tramp, acts like a tramp, then follows a dude back to his apartment from a club and gets raped is an idiot, so to are the men who replied to this posting. But just as the dude who raped the tramp is a rapist who should be shot - repeatedly - in the face, so should the dude who "outted" these guys get kicked straight up in the balls. And in the wallet, for good measure.
we regret to inform (Score:5, Insightful)
We regret to inform you that your services as network administrator will no longer be required. The job of any IT professional confers a tremendous amount of trust that important business or personal data will not be disclosed to third parties for any reason, including sociopathic self aggrandizing glee. Recent highly publicized events have caused us to question your ability to operate within that relationship of trust with any business. We must reluctantly conclude that you certainly cannot do so in our organization.
Please gather your personal items and report for an exit interview in HR at 9:00 AM.
Sincerely,
Bernard Shifman
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:4, Insightful)
I would disagree. I can have the same social effect if I were to do this via street fliers stapled to phone poles in the respective neighborhoods.
The internet is different, but the people are the same. You can still meet some real jerks -- just faster and they're harder to spot because it's easier to pose on the internet.
For all you know, I might be a hyper-intelligent shade of blue and not a carbon based life form.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
So in that case he'd have to replace the marriage? Well, I guess he could find himself on the receiving end of those 178 dominant men. "Ponying up" indeed. Think of it like truth in advertising, only after the fact. Harsh punishment, but he did say that he wanted it, right? Isn't that pretty much the logic he's using anyway?
Re:HA HA HA HA HA (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, perhaps they are perfectly comfortable and confident of themselves, but recognize that most of society disagrees with their ideas of what is proper sexual behavior for consenting adults.
It's one thing to be completely open about unusual sexual practices with friends and family, quite another to have them available on Google for future employers to misinterpret when they don't know what you are really like, and they have a mistaken stereotype of what someone with your interests will be like personally and professionally.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were, they wouldnt be in much legal trouble - just the pain in the ass of going to court and getting it thrown out on the basis of entrapment.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking more in terms of the people who, through this "scandalous" nonsense may lose their jobs or standing within the society they are surrouded with because of ignorant disapproval of their lifestyle choices makes this more clear-cut, I feel. The married guys were (unless they're polyamorous, in which case only the previous section is relevant) clearly doing something wrong, but a lot of people were not.
This childish "HA HA LOOK AT TEH BONDAGE FREAKS LOL" posting could mess with people's lives for no good reason, to the end of providing some ignorant, immature people on the internet a little giggle that amounts to little more than appeasing their lack of understanding of alternative sexual practices.
So, in short, I think people are placing too much emphasis on the assholes who were cheating on their wives. What about the sexually-adventurous people who for whatever reason chose to keep their habits out of the eyes of the people they associate with daily?
Should this be against the law, etc., is another matter altogether, but let's not forget there are perfectly innocent people having their privacy violated here, whether you believe the common man has a right to it or not.
Re:my thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:3, Insightful)
Your average, nuerotypical person is good at reading body language and understanding the signs of authenticity, such as clothing, vehicle, dialect, etc. However, they aren't the best readers, and their skeptical tools aren't as refined as they are for sniffing out con artists. They've been lied to and heard BS stories hundreds of times from all sorts of people all throughout their life. However, they've very rarely encountered a situation where they've needed to think critically about information they encountered in writing. They've never encountered written BS. Most people, when encountering conflicting information in text, think that they simply don't understand the text. Also, the punishments for ignoring official letters are far greater than telling a real bureaucrat who you thought was a con artist to f*ck off.
Ever since its invention, writing is the defacto sign of authority. The very first writings were receipts for business transactions. Literate people were a rare commodity, and only the aristocracy could afford to train and employ them. The village idiot didn't have an independent paper or a blog. He just ranted out loud in the square. Anything written was official, simply by the fact that it was written. Also, we have 3 of the world's major religions based on a Holy Book that was dictated by God Himself. That lends an 'aura' of authenticity to writing.
Unfortunately, the internet is primarily a written medium, and people tend to take anything that's written as gospel, just as they have for thousands of years.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:3, Insightful)
Spot on post there. The issue as I see it isn't so much about breaking laws, or the fact that some of the people were married, but more to do with the fact that the guy in question was clearly just being a complete asshole.
It's just immature nonsense, and the fact that so many people seem to find the action admirable in some way annoys the hell out of me. This is a high school-level prank with far more serious repercussions for people's lives, and not just for the ones who were "doing something wrong" (the married ones), at best. It's immature, it's not funny, and it just shows that the prankster has no respect for people in general. Which is summed up perfectly in the linked blog entries characterisation of the act as "sociopathic".
Re:They deserve it (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy who pulled this vile stunt went beyond that, by deciding that he had the right to act on his beliefs, to carry out the sentence he believed these poor saps deserved.
His victims behaved stupidly. Nobody is disputing that. But there's too much stupidity in the world to make stupidity alone a punishable offense.
There are lots of people in this discussion who sound like they would be thrilled if Jason Fortuny was discovered bludgeoned to death in a back alley somewhere. I'm probably one of them. But the difference between believing he deserves such treatment, and actually giving him such treatment, is the foundation of a society based on the rule of law.
That is a good sign. (Score:5, Insightful)
The men who provided sensitive personal information to an anonymous stranger were foolish and took a big risk. The guy who posted this private information on a public forum did commit an immoral and illegal act. The foolishness of the doms one does not absolve Jason of his offenses, and his violation of their trust does not change the fact that it was stupid of them to trust him to begin with, nor does it absolve the ones who were cheating on their wives. These men have faced the unfortunate consequences of their actions, now it is time for Jason to face the consequences of his.
On the other hand, it is a good that you can feel bad for what happened to someone while recognizing that they brought it on themselves. I mean that for both sides - the ones that had their trust violated, and the one who was to immature to realize that what he was doing wasn't just a prank. It only becomes a problem when people turn empathy into whitewash, or recognition of guilt into an excuse to demonize.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:4, Insightful)
The little shit did have a stated privacy policy [archive.org], ironically enough.
Re:It's perhaps time people understood (Score:2, Insightful)
But it wasn't private. Nearly all of the people sent emails from their real addresses using their real names. None were encrypted. So you have emails coming from identifiable addresses, cleartext across the internet -- thousands of miles where anyone can read their contents (and probably did). Even if the senders didn't realize this (which they obviously didn't), you'd think at least a COUPLE would realize their employers keep track of outgoing mail.
When someone sends their bank information and telephone number through email to Nigerian scammers, Slashdot calls them idiots. When they're requesting sexual domination we're somehow supposed to treat them differently?
His methods were crude, but this is a wakeup call. You'd think years after the internet became mainstream people wouldn't need one, but apparently they still do.
Re:As an IT manager at a Fortune 500 company (Score:1, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned, this is just an example of a guy with creativity and ingenuity. He trolled a bunch of sick perverted freaks, I can hardly side with those guys and don't see why you would.
I know that if this situation were about child molestors or predators, then everyone would be getting the rope ready for every one of those perverts he caught and calling him a hero.
The moral of the story is - don't give out information to people you don't trust. If you're looking for sex, you're basically opening yourself up to a whole can of worms including STDs.
Of course, if you're one of those guys who got exposed by him, then I could see why you would be upset!
Bait an Obvius Fake. Re:The jokes on you! (Score:4, Insightful)
The text of the bait post doesn't match the Picture included with it.
The quote: "i don't get fucked in my ass since my hole is tite..........don't even try or think about it."
The girl in that picture, Looks like she has been Analyzed enough to need a diaper. To say nothing of doubts of tightness anywhere when you look like that from behind.
Re:Hah! Bet at least 50% are real & 40% are ma (Score:5, Insightful)
Some hints. If all you're finding are married men, posers and losers: you're using the wrong dating site and/or you're searching for the wrong criteria.
Hint #1: Craigslist is the wrong site if you are looking for an actual relationship. One-night stand? Line forms to the left. Random sex in parking lots? Right over here, ma'am. Meaningful relationship? I'm sorry, but we're all out at the moment.
Those women who perpetually date players (who then cheat on them) don't seem to be able to distinguish between arrogance and confidence, and seem to put more value on the car than the person (for the overly sensitive: this is an unfair generalization with a large dose of truth). Hint #2: Be different from those women in how you select partners, and you'll be different from them in the relationships you have.
Hint #3: The trick with the photographs is to not put so much value on a photo and instead, value someone who can write a decent profile, respond well in email (articulate, decent spelling and grammar, possibly funny) and meet the guy quickly (but with a low investment). After two or three emails, meet at a coffee shop after work "for a quick cup" and make up your mind in person in 5-20 minutes.
Fundamentally, don't pretend that dating sites are a replacement for the first date. They're a replacement for the club, activity, or job where you might otherwise see someone interesting, but not a whole lot more. All of the other work in meeting someone great is still up to you.
Regards,
Ross
Re:As an IT manager at a Fortune 500 company (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not an example of creativity and ingenuity. This is an example of being an untrustworthy jerk who really isn't in touch with the ramifications of his actions. One's sexual leanings has very little to do with how they'll operate within a workplace. One's social interactions has much to do with how they'll operate in a workplace. This guy has shown that he is immature and cannot empathize with people, is willing to do pretty much anything to impress his social group (lolz, lulz, roflcopter, et. al.), and does not fully think through his actions. Not only did he harm strangers (stupid strangers though they may be), but he simultaneously put the companies that employ him at risk of community backlash. He is therefore a liability.
If you like being whipped, gagged and forcefully dominated, it might reflect on your personality, but not nearly in the same way of the actions HE committed.