Controversy Erupts Over Craigslist Prank

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.

Legal Implications?

[Alicat1194]

Wouldn't this be some sort of breach of contract or communication? Since the guys who replied believed they were responding to an individual, and thus most likely consider it a private communication, would they be able to take legal action?

Welcome to the new world

[identity0]

With all the talk about "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide from the government", it's only natural that people will start to snoop on each other. After all, if you haven't done anything wrong, you have no reason to hide it, right?

It seems like the Transparent Society [davidbrin.com] is coming closer all the time. I'm not sure it's a good thing, though.

On the other hand, I'm suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before. Outing a few dozen gay men would make them hesitant to associate, and it's not like fundamentalist churches don't have lots of money and members with free time... Maybe they're afraid some of their own would be caught or something.

I'm really torn on this

[IICV]

I really can't make up my opinion on this case, probably because it's 12:30 am here. Anyway, on the one hand, the people who responded to this with any information that's directly traceable to them are morons, and doubly so for the ones who were stupid enough to use their friggin' work e-mail. I mean, come on! Everyone likes a bit of the old misuse of company resources now and then, but asking for sex with your work address? It's probably a good thing your genes won't spread far.

On the other hand, though, publishing their information in a public place isn't quite kosher. Although we all know that sending someone a plaintext e-mail is almost as bad as shouting from the rooftops should anyone actually want to intercept the message, it's not quite as bad as posting pictures of your stoned self on MySpace and expecting nobody to ever find it. There is at least a little bit of expectation that this is a private sort of thing; I would be a lot happier with him if he'd just quietly notified the people who replied that they'd been scammed, and only published the details of those who became abusive.

One thing I don't really care about is the way the 27B-6 guy is complaining about marriages being destroyed because of this. It really makes no sense; if the guy is responding to ads online and his wife doesn't know about it, there's probably something deeply troubled in the marriage and it's likely to go to divorce soon anyway. Similarly with the public lynching argument: if you are so uncomfortable with your tastes that you wouldn't like to publicize them, why are you even taking the risk of replying to something on Craig's List? Yes, this is likely to be the first time such a stunt has been publicized, but still - you'd expect people would rather keep their activities a secret to take some reasonable precautions. Like not using their damn work e-mail.

Which actually brings up an interesting point! How many times has this stunt been pulled on Craig's List, only instead of being put on some stupid Wiki, those who responded with useful information just got blackmailed? How much would you pay so that your wife doesn't find out about your animal bondage fetish?

Perfect IIED case

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of the very rare Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress case that can actually win.

Depends on the jury, but this guy is absolutely liable.

Not for libel (I don't even know why people would suggest that).

I'd say IANAL, but I am.

Re:Welcome to the new world

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before. Outing a few dozen gay men would make them hesitant to associate, and it's not like fundamentalist churches don't have lots of money and members with free time... Maybe they're afraid some of their own would be caught or something.

Once outed, what would they have left to loose through association. Conversely, outing them would make their association stronger and their voices louder. This would be the last thing the social conservatives would want. They're bullies. They don't want to actually fight them, they only want them to cower and submit to their will out of fear of alienation.

Re:Did you get your Internet connection yesterday.

[Alicat1194]

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)

Just because it's the internet, and the people who replied were at the very least, foolish, doesn't mean that the law doesn't still apply.

(And just a friendly, grammar-nazi tip, it's "staggered", not "staggared" )

Re:I hate this guy

[rm999]

In case it's taken down:

The Saga of Jerry and "Wife"

* Official thread

Jerry has already contacted me by e-mail, demanding I remove all traces of him from my post. This appears to be an anonymous reply from him in my LJ: http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410835.html?thread= 7629011#t7629011 [livejournal.com]

Jerry claims he has an open marriage. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

Edit: Update. Jerry and his "wife" contacted me on AIM
Part I: Email conversation with Jerry

From [e-mail]
> You will remove the pictures of me from your stupid craigslist experiment.
> My wife and I have an open relationship, don\'t believe me? Contact her and
> ask her. But you will remove me, you have no right to post this kind of crap
> without first knowing the full details. Here is the bullshit i want you to
> remove: http://rfjason.livejournal.com/410835.html?thread= 7600851..t7600851 [livejournal.com]

From Jason
Why should I?

From [e-mail]
Because I would appreciate it, because my wife and I have an open relationship
and I would never "cheat" on her. Because we play with others to enhance our
own relationship. Because she is fully aware of what goes on. And again
because I'd appreciate it.
I don't want to fight this out with you, I understand why you're doing
this - to husbands that actually cheat, however, I wouldn't do that - my wife
and I are fully participating swingers, now please remove the thread.

From Jason
Well, if anything, this should help you meet MORE people.

From [e-mail]
And it's not the way I want it done. So you have no intentions of removing it
then? That's fine, I'll ignore it and move on with my life.

From Jason
Wait, I thought you were going to sue me?

From [e-mail]
I'll look into all my options, and if I choose legal recourse, it
wouldn't be a
lawsuit. It would be a criminal case, if that didn't work, then I imagine I'd
have to settle for a civil suit. But either way, this is the last time I
communicate with you. I have nothing more to say - by even responding in the
first place I gave you what you want, and that was foolish of me.

Part II: IM Conversation with Jerry

[10:29] JrITadmin69: Just the man I was looking for.
[10:30] RFJason: Hi Jerry. I just replied to your e-mail.
[10:30] JrITadmin69: and i replied to yours
[10:30] JrITadmin69: Look, I understand what you're trying to do with your experiment.
[10:31] JrITadmin69: And I don't take offense, other then that you didn't attempt to get the whole story, and jumped to conclusions.
[10:31] RFJason: I didn't jump to any conclusions.
[10:31] JrITadmin69: And I learned my lesson as well, don't include my face anymore, assuming my wife and i decide to continue with our lifestyle.
[10:31] JrITadmin69: Sure you did, you assumed I was cheating on my

Re:Legal Implications?

[headLITE]

I don't know about the US, but in many countries this would qualify as a misdelivered message (no difference between dead tree and electronic). As the tubologically challenged guys who responded sent their messages to a woman (or believed they were doing so), they could say the guy who published them really had no right to them because he was not the addressee.

Regardless of this, at least for those that will have their marriage ruined by this... you probably deserve it. If you're married, don't look for adventures online.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[Opportunist]

Excuse me, but sending very private information to someone you don't have the foggiest clue about pretty much means you don't know how the 'net works.

It's funny how many people will even respond to fraudulent requests to surrender information to "da man", thinking that everyone pisses their pants before even considering imposing as federal agents, not thinking that it could be kinda hard to execute federal US law against someone located in a country ending in -stan.

Then again, considering the anti-spam, anti-fraud, anti-bad-thing-done-through-the-internet laws passed recently, neither do politicians have a clue how it works...

Re:What a pathetic little asshole

[legoburner]

Yes, as good an idea as he thought it was, any company that ever googles his name now will instantly see pages associated with sex-related pranks, and see pages and pages of controversy and arguments. I read in one place that a couple of marriages are breaking apart because of his actions*, and he has been anything but anonymous in his 'prank' (his full address was available along with phone number and name on his site when he first did this and it has been reposted in quite a few places), so one wonders what will come either legally or illegally of him as a result of this.

*Though they would probably have broken apart anyway as nobody can hide this sort of thing forever.

FYI

[TheLink]

He used to say in his website: http://web.archive.org/web/20050211124330/rfjason. com/contact/
Privacy Policy:
You are sending me direct contact information that is sensitive. I protect your privacy in the following ways:
(1) I will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever;
(2) I will never send you any unrequested e-mail, besides e-mail in the regular course of business; and
(3) Your information is stored behind network address translation and a software firewall.

But now he doesn't. ;)

Re:I feel for these suckers

[Anonymous Coward]

I learnt this lesson and stated to be careful around 10 (or more) years ago.

I came across a link to a website that said something like 'click here for hot chicks'. Of course I clicked on it and the front page asked me to enter my name and email address to see hot chicks. There wasn't a big problem with spam back then and porn was still mostly confined to alt.binaries.sex, so I entered my details in out of curiosity (of course).

The next thing I know, a picture of chicks (as in baby chicken) comes up with a message saying something like "Hope you enjoy these pictures of hot chicks. Here is the list of others that share your passion for poultry", followed by my personal details and a list of personal details of other people.

I've been careful with my details ever since.

Missing?

[Omestes]

Odd thing, the full Encyclopeida Dramatica [encycloped...matica.com] site is down, and even more strange is that the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for it is deleted and protected, along with the talk page, and there is no explanation, it has been down since august. Does anyone have any idea why this is?

Did it get slashdotted, or purposely removed? Also whats up with the Wikipedia page. I would like to at least know what the Encyclopedia Dramatica is, the only source I could really find was from Urban Dictionary, which really isn't the best source of anything.

Re:Trollin trollin trollin

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

FTFA:

September 10: Jason Fortuny modified his homepage to remove all references to his professional life: portfolio, resume, and references to past clients are all gone. (Compare to the older versions on the Internet Archive.) It also looks like he's been scrubbing his personal contact information from his Livejournal comments and homepage. For example, this link from my post originally went to a comment with his contact information, but it's been removed entirely. (Strangely, he didn't remove his home address and phone number from this entry.)

Bwaahahah, nice one Ferris. Pwn3d.

What an idiot

[Antony-Kyre]

The simple fact he posted personal information like that will be his undoing. It being a prank or experiment is one thing, but when he violated people's privacy, he went too far. He could have somehow censored a lot of the stuff he was sent, still proving that he received the material though.

There's one thing though. If he's a heterosexual male, you have to feel sorry for the fact he saw the genitalia of other men.

As for those (stupid) people who gave out their personal information, at least their doing one thing good. Proving that it's a bad idea to give out such personal information. Always be cautious.

Does craigslist have any sort of policy against what has happened? Didn't any of the men put any disclaimer in the e-mails they sent to not share out their personal information? (I know when I contact certain sites, I ask not to be added to any mailing list inside the message, but of course, that's a different thing entirely.)

Sociopathy and Hypocrisy = Bad Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortuny is not only a narsissistic sociopath, but a hypocrite; the two are commonly found together. Surely, Fortuny, like all of ous, hold personal secrets that we don't want others - or most others - to know. Would he be willing to 'expose' his personal secrets in a way that caused him personal embarrassment, or caused pain to others that he didn't intend? I doubt it.

Fortuny's karma will be the fact that his reputation for committing his sociopathic and shameful actions will be ON EVERY INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE for the rest of his life; every time someone does a search on his name - i.e. potential employers, friends, lovers, neighbors, etc.

Fortuny is far more troubled than any of the people he outed, that's for sure.

What's really ironic is that people Fortuny knows well - possibly even close friends or relatives - no doubt harbor, and may even act on some of the fetishes that his victims were pursuing. S&M is not what most people prefer, but it's not exactly uncommon. What an irony!!

How funny...

[Shads]

... now he's yanking information that was on his site, design portfolio stuff, etc... silly man, doesn't he know about the wayback machine? :)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://rfjason.com [archive.org]

Make the Punishment fit the Crime

[giafly]

...and add this scumbag to the Sex Offenders Register [megans-law.net]. The reported facts (which may be partial or incorrect) suggest criminal charges of soliciting and indecent exposure.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

He lives in my apartment complex!

[Mori Chu]

My girlfriend and I live in the same apartment complex as this Jason jerk in Kirkland, WA (a suburb of Seattle). He posted his address on a web site before taking it down. The only problem is that he didn't publish which apartment number he was in. There are only 4 apartments in our unit; he's in one of the upstairs pair.

So now I'm worried that some of these furious men will come after him and will instead throw their rocks through my windows, or worse. I feel like my well-being has been potentially endangered by this guy. What should I do? Part of me feels like shouting his address (WITH apartment number) from the Internet rooftops. Part of me wants to post a sign on our door that says "sociopath A-hole Jason upstairs, not here." Maybe I should even alert the police. Any ideas?

Re:The jokes on you!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, he did take down all of his personal information on his registered website that has existed for at least a bit. so we can assume he's real or a damn good planner and has lots of time on his hands. his resume isn't likely to be fake either. As to the respondents, well if he's stupid enough to use HIS real name (this will follow him negatively for a long time) he's probably not faking his joy and arrogance in the many many responses and probably actually did this stupid stunt.

Still funny when google does it?

[ztransform]

.. because it has happened (see this link [smh.com.au]).

The truth is a LOT of personal information of ours is stored in computers. Some of it is benign. Some of it is kinky. Some of it could put our financial, social, and medical lives at risk!

In this circumstance we are talking about someone who divulged information of a sexual nature - but google can do this too by matching gmail address cookies with search phrases.. scary!

Re:Hope he has his passport ready

[gatzke]

I actually found some stuff on disclosure of private fact.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.asp x?id=14038&#q14038 [firstamendmentcenter.org]

Not sure if outing someone or posting their fetish would violate a criminal law, but it apparently makes you liable in civil court, unless you can show the information to be newsworthy.

Pervs outed for going after 14 year old girls shown on 20/20 (US news TV show) would probably be newsworthy, as they are breaking the law.

Actually not so sure on this case now. The story is now newsworthy, but the individuals that had private information published may not be so newsworthy individually. Also, not so sure if this is "highly offensive to a reasonable person." So you like to spank little girls? Sick, but not highly offensive to most people with dead morals thanks to years of MTV.

Re:copyright violation?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As for the copyright violations - that is a tough one. The copyright to an email and a jpeg rests with the author. However this was published and in such a fashion that it might actually be public domain.

How on earth does sending a private mail constitute publication?

In the USA one must register the copyright prior to publishing and if this is not done the copyright becomes imperfect and as such enters limbo. (IANAL but I have researched this).

I'd like to see your research, then, because AFAIK that hasn't been the situation in the US for many years now, and never was the situation in some jurisdictions.

Re:The jokes on you!

[Anonymous Coward]

he also used to sell domination related t-shirts i think.

blah [archive.org]
blah2 [archive.org]

Criminal 2257 Violations 5 years Jail + $25k fine

[quadszilla]

As someone who works in the adult space, I can tell you that what Jason Fortuny did was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2257 [cornell.edu]: Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2257, producers and publishers of a "visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct" are required to keep records showing the ages of the models.

(B), "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated-- (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

While it was designed to stop child pornography, you are required to keep records for everyone whose sexually explicit photos you publish. If you don't, 2257 calls for prison terms up to 5 years and $25k for a single offence. If one of those photos were mine, I would be contacting the Seattle FBI office [fbi.gov] today for enforcement.

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[sm62704]

I have no sympathy whatever.

Some used their work accounts, provided their real names and gave out their cellphone numbers. One looks to be a contractor for Microsoft, while another used a .mil address to reply.

What a bunch of stupid jackasses! Work accounts? Cell numbers? And jesus but shouldn't a guy who works for Microsoft, even as a janitor, know better?

Fortuny seems not to realize or pretends not to realize that his prank may cost people their jobs and possibly, their marriages

Realise, or care? I wouldn't have cared; your work account is for work. Your work DOES post and even require you read their policies, don't they? You might as well say that someone's job was threatened because he informed the bosses that the employees were embezzling.

As to the married guys I have even LESS sympathy. They simply should not be cybersexing, period.

These morons got what they deserved. Especially the Microsoft guy.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having previously been friends with Jason in the past, I can say this is exactly the sort of thing he does for fun. He looks for ways to humiliate and degrade people. He is a deeply disturbed individual. Sociopathic is definitely a good term. Other people only exist for his personal enjoyment, nothing else. He cares not one iota for other individuals beyond what sort of entertainment he can glean from them. Based on what I've heard from the women who have attempted serious relationship with him, he is extremely emotionally abusive.

Seriously, the more attention you give this childish prank, the more he will do it and the more people who will get hurt. Frankly, it's only a matter of time before he crosses the line and someone gets physically injured by Fortuny's "entertainment".

Is it no surprise that such an attention whore has an LJ?
rfjason.livejournal.com
rfjason.com

He considers us trash to be used for his enjoyment.
Let's see that he doesn't "get away" with his abusive behavior any further, shall we?

Re:I'm really torn on this

[Miniluv]

I'm actually willing to believe Jason Fortuny does in fact exist. His behavior sends strong signals that he really did post all of this with his own info, and as the enormity of the potential consequences of what he did begin to dawn on him he's feverishly redacting his info off his websites. As if it wasn't mirrored all over the web by the time he had this lightbulb moment.

I found it truly amusing that someone sought to exploit people's inherent belief in the anonymity of the internet while clinging to that same belief himself.

Just sad

[frenchs]

I've been waiting to comment on this one. I've seen it floating around in a couple places the past few days (digg, fark, etc.). The most repulsive part of this is that on the Tucker Max messageboard [tuckermax.com], he is asking for advice on how to turn this into some sort of career move.

My prediction is that this ruins his personal life, professional life, and finances. In the world of google, who doesn't run the name of a prospective employee through google? Lawsuit happy; Yep, he'd probably lose them and go broke. Personal life; I can't imagine there is much of one if he does this type of stuff, and even so, what girl would find this type of behavior endearing?

His best option at this point would be to just shut up, let it go, and do some growing up.

-steve

Hah! Bet at least 50% are real & 40% are marr

[queenb**ch]

Being a female geek isn't easy and so I've tried the on-line dating thing. (Dramatic Eye Roll) - All you ever get are a bunch of posers and losers. Most of them are married, many with children and none of them are shy about giving out personal details like employment (bragging), salary (bragging), work phone #, cell phone #, email address, etc. What you won't get from most of them is a photo that's taken in the last 20 years or a home phone #.

2 cents,

QueenB

Re:It's perhaps time people understood

[bentcd]

Norway adheres to the Berne convention (or did last time I looked anyway) and if you take a picture of another person here, that person has a copyright on the picture. So does the person that took the picture, apparantly, but the person in the picture can veto any publication etc.

In Norwegian here:
http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#45c [lovdata.no]
In English (but unoffical I expect):
http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19610512-00 2-eng.pdf [ub.uio.no]
(para 45c)

Of course, there is a lot of leeway for the media to use pictures that are in the public interest etc. even if the copyright holder might object, but the basic law is quite clear.

Re:As an IT manager at a Fortune 500 company

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Maybe because unlike a child molestor, people who happen to enjoy that particular hobby haven't done anything WRONG, except in your narrow morality. Get it through your head, the vast majority of those people responded to a personal ad for someone who professed a like-minded interest that is perfectly legal, no different than drinking beer, watching baseball or eating apple pie.

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!

Nice unfounded assumption. Where have I heard it before though? Oh right - 'If you have nothing to hide..'

Having read the comments on /. and Wired's article, I find that every person supporting this SOB does so while simultaneously condeming his victims as 'perverts'. Almost as though they feel threatened by people who like sex..

Some more info on rfjason...

[suburbancore]

(karma whoring since I had to create a new account) I have been really intrigued by this guy rfjason's actions and have been googling for information just to see what the deal is... I think he might actually be the BIGGEST asshole ever. This is some choice links for insight into this guy's fucked-up-ness: Comments on New orleans [livejournal.com] Reply to someone who didnt enjoy his PREVIOUS prank [livejournal.com] His request for help at the tucker max forum [tuckermax.com] The last one is amazing.... A bunch of self-declared assholes concluding that this rfjason guy REALLY is a douche-bag (they just have no qualms about helping him :P) Another good one [livejournal.com] Seriously, this guy is unbelievable and appears to have said something to piss off everyone at some point or another.

Re:I know this guy personally, yes he's real.

[Anonymous Coward]

He claimed that others had sub-par intelligence and couldn't get a real job? Classic Jason. He says that about anybody he envies.

Funny - his "real job" consists of gleaning the castoffs from a friend who is actually successful. He then succeeds in pissing off about 85% of his clientelle. No surprise. How he manages not to starve to death is nothing short of a miracle.

Yes, I used to know the guy, too. Glad I don't anymore. Life is better without Jason in it.

-Anonymous Coward in Redmond