Sex Baiting Prank on Craigslist Affects Hundreds

[Yossarian]

Some guy puts up a bait add on craigslist, waits for responses, then publishes them in full, including photos, names, email addresses, the whole shebang.

There has already been one seperation because of this and many folk are likely to be publically humiliated once word gets out.

link is worksafe but links OFF it aren't so hxxping it

hxxp://www.waxy.org/archive/2006/09/08/sex_bait.shtml

There's a microsoft employee on there, a Navy guy, a couple of business owners, a lawyer with his own firm.

BUSTED.

[Raiders Army]

LOL. Well, don't play the game if you're not willing to lose.

[sachmo71]

What a dick.

[Qwikshot]

The internet is no longer anonymous, people should know that by now.

[FrogMan]

The internet is no longer anonymous, people should know that by now.

But at the same time, some people are still giving out their credit card number (bank account info) when they get a request to do so in an email...

FM

[Klinglerware]

The internet is no longer anonymous, people should know that by now.

Another implication here is that you could potentially ruin the lives of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the ad. If you were really malicious and you knew a few personal details about the target and perhaps a knowledge of Photoshop, you could respond assuming another person's identity...

[BrianD]

The thing that makes this so rude is the ad was posted in an area meant for these kinds of ads. There should be some expectation of privacy here. Its not like the posting was for a babysitter and included the mother's picture, which generated these responses.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I smell multiple lawsuits.

[I. J. Reilly]

Another implication here is that you could potentially ruin the lives of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the ad. If you were really malicious and you knew a few personal details about the target and perhaps a knowledge of Photoshop, you could respond assuming another person's identity...

Good point.

Note to self, be nicer to dorks in IT.

[Desnudo]

The thing that makes this so rude is the ad was posted in an area meant for these kinds of ads. There should be some expectation of privacy here. Its not like the posting was for a babysitter and included the mother's picture, which generated these responses.

Name on the list?

[Logan]

Another implication here is that you could potentially ruin the lives of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the ad. If you were really malicious and you knew a few personal details about the target and perhaps a knowledge of Photoshop, you could respond assuming another person's identity...

Someone here missed a wonderful potential use of the Izulde pic.

[RPI-Fan]

I smell multiple lawsuits.

On what grounds?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

On what grounds?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that publishing someone's correspondence without their consent is a privacy violation. Especially if he used their names and pictures.

[Drake]

Once someone sends you the correspondence, it becomes yours. You can do what you want with your own property.

[BrianD]

Name on the list?

No. :)

This sort of "sting" just bothers me. It is like posting a fake ad in a "men seeking men" area and then publishing a list of people who are homosexual. It is what the area was designed for, so to say you caught people is misleading. Sure, there are morality questions when married people are responding to an ad like this, but that is a separate issue. If the experiment was to see how many men would respond to a sex ad, they could have done that without publishing names and pictures. It seems like the only point of this was to embarrass a lot of people.

[sachmo71]

No. :)

This sort of "sting" just bothers me. It is like posting a fake ad in a "men seeking men" area and then publishing a list of people who are homosexual. It is what the area was designed for, so to say you caught people is misleading. Sure, there are morality questions when married people are responding to an ad like this, but that is a separate issue. If the experiment was to see how many men would respond to a sex ad, they could have done that without publishing names and pictures. It seems like the only point of this was to embarrass a lot of people.

The guy even said that, according to the article. he "likes to push people's buttons". So he's just a dick.

[BrianD]

The guy even said that, according to the article. he "likes to push people's buttons". So he's just a dick.

Let's run our own social experiment then. Let's post a bunch of info about this guy and see if anyone decides to push him in front of a bus.

[Ksyrup]

Encyclopedia Dramatica (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/) (kinda like Wikipedia for web fads and Internet drama).

First thought: Huh?
Second thought: Shouldn't HornsManiac, Dave Dial, Daivd Winters, Mrs. Kippy, et al, have an entry in this? I wonder if we could generate traffic for FOF this way!

[Daimyo]

Once someone sends you the correspondence, it becomes yours. You can do what you want with your own property.
I think there is an implied expectation of privacy when you send an email or letter to someone. If nothing else aren't the emails copyrighted material by the author and only printable with their permission? (not that it would matter much since they have no commercial value)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You may be right there. I'm not sure Drake is entirely right. Washington has a very broad right of privacy tort. It's the intent here that counts too if he is just trying to embarass them.

It all comes down to whether sending the info is a waiver of the right. I am not so sure it is in all cases especially if there was an expectation of privacy involved. I just don't think it is an open and shut as this. Not to mention, a judge or jury is just not going to see the guy in anything but a really bad light.

[RPI-Fan]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that publishing someone's correspondence without their consent is a privacy violation. Especially if he used their names and pictures.

What specifically would you claim in the lawsuit? Most people love to throw around the terms "slander" and/or "libel", but neither of those is remotely applicable here.

As has been mentioned by those more informed than myself or you, there is really no case whatsoever for a lawsuit here.

[BrianD]

The linked article seems to think differently. Not that there is a great case, but "no case whatsoever" seems not quite right.

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.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, as stated. Washington has a cause of action for invasion of privacy. And it would clearly apply here unless there was a waiver by submitting the information. Doesn't matter whether the dissemination of the information was true or not.

It it published (i.e. disseminated to the publice), of private nature, embarrassing to subject someone to public ridicule, is not in the public interest (like letting people know a dentist has AIDS and they are at risk), and was not waived (expressly or impliedly), then the guy is in trouble.

Of course, you still have to prove damages, but that could definitely be possible for some (i.e. lose your job and get lost wages).

[Jonathan Ezarik]

What specifically would you claim in the lawsuit? Most people love to throw around the terms "slander" and/or "libel", but neither of those is remotely applicable here.

As has been mentioned by those more informed than myself or you, there is really no case whatsoever for a lawsuit here.

If someone losses their job because of this there's no case? Or if a marriage ends because of this? His whole intent was to cause harm to these people.

I don't know what I would claim since I don't know the law. But if I my life was ruined because of this, you can be damn sure I would do my best to sue his ass for all he's worth.

[BrianD]

...and the ever effective "emotional distress".

[yabanci]

What specifically would you claim in the lawsuit? Most people love to throw around the terms "slander" and/or "libel", but neither of those is remotely applicable here.

As has been mentioned by those more informed than myself or you, there is really no case whatsoever for a lawsuit here.

the appropriate cause of action would be public disclosure of private facts, an invasion of privacy tort recognized in most states. The elements, at least in California, are (1) public disclosure, (2) of a private fact, (3) that is offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) which is not a legitimate matter of public concern.

The first and fourth elements are clearly established. A pretty good argument can be made on the third. The main issue would be whether these are considered private facts under the law. The people on that list undoubtedly intended the information to be private, but the question is whether these guys had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they volunteered it, without a promise of confidentiality, to someone on the internet whom they've never met and about whom they really know nothing. I suppose it's debatable, but it's likely a loser here. These cases are very difficult to win. The courts take a very narrow view of what are private facts and what a reasonable person would find offensive, because to do otherwise would open the floodgates of litigation.

Of course, if this guy has ruined the life of someone with money or lawyer friends and that person is inclined to get revenge despite the embarassment, a lawsuit or string of lawsuits might financially ruin the guy who posted all this crap, even if the case ends up being a loser. While typically easy to defend, they are still very expensive.

In the end, the guys who sent emails are fools for not doing so anonymously and the guy who posted all that information is a fool for exposing himself to potential liability.

[sachmo71]

Let's run our own social experiment then. Let's post a bunch of info about this guy and see if anyone decides to push him in front of a bus.

The article says that he posted most of his personal information already, including his address and phone number. He's either very brave, or very stupid. I'm going with the latter.

[st.cronin]

I thought "invasion of privacy" was exactly the basis of the recent lawsuit over wire-tapping.

[CamEdwards]

If someone losses their job because of this there's no case? Or if a marriage ends because of this? His whole intent was to cause harm to these people.

I don't know what I would claim since I don't know the law. But if I my life was ruined because of this, you can be damn sure I would do my best to sue his ass for all he's worth.

Wait just a sec. Without a doubt this guy's a dickweed, but let's not forget that the idiots who sent in their info are responsible for their own actions. If a marriage ends because of this, is it the dickweed internet guy's fault or the dickweed husband's fault? I'm going with option #2.

[kcchief19]

I thought "invasion of privacy" was exactly the basis of the recent lawsuit over wire-tapping.
Talk about apples and oranges. It's an issue of "invasion of privacy" when someone uses covert means to obtain information when you should reasonably expect to be private, such as wiretapping your phone without a court order. This is an issue where people have willingly given information in a format where there is no reason to expect it to be private.
What specifically would you claim in the lawsuit? Most people love to throw around the terms "slander" and/or "libel", but neither of those is remotely applicable here.

As has been mentioned by those more informed than myself or you, there is really no case whatsoever for a lawsuit here.
There would be if someone submitted false information, such as providing someone else's name and photo, and he published that information. That would fit the textbook definition of libel.

[clintl]

If a marriage ends because of this, is it the dickweed internet guy's fault or the dickweed husband's fault? I'm going with option #2.

Both are at fault.

[kcchief19]

Wait just a sec. Without a doubt this guy's a dickweed, but let's not forget that the idiots who sent in their info are responsible for their own actions. If a marriage ends because of this, is it the dickweed internet guy's fault or the dickweed husband's fault? I'm going with option #2.
That's how I see it too. Is this a gentlemanly thing to do? No. But are people cheating on their spouses worth defending? No.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Wait just a sec. Without a doubt this guy's a dickweed, but let's not forget that the idiots who sent in their info are responsible for their own actions. If a marriage ends because of this, is it the dickweed internet guy's fault or the dickweed husband's fault? I'm going with option #2.

Who's to say these guys were going to follow through with what they said? What if they just sent these e-mails off as a joke?

[Eaglesfan27]

Who's to say these guys were going to follow through with what they said? What if they just sent these e-mails off as a joke?


I don't think any married guy sends this type of thing as a "joke" unless he has a seriously self-destructive streak.

[Celeval]

Wait just a sec. Without a doubt this guy's a dickweed, but let's not forget that the idiots who sent in their info are responsible for their own actions. If a marriage ends because of this, is it the dickweed internet guy's fault or the dickweed husband's fault? I'm going with option #2.

Agreed, but a guy who loses his job because of the publicity caused by this - which is possible - would have more of a question.

[Joe]

I hope none of these were posted in the Minneapolis section of craigslist, or I could be screwed.

[Drake]

I think it's fair to say that I stand corrected on the right of ownership with respect to correspondence. So I'll fall back on the ol' common sense argument that you should never commit to writing (much less to the internet) what you might not want other people to know about you. :)

(For the record, I think the "private fact" bit of the equation might be the hardest part to prove in court. If I was a judge handling this case, I'd be pretty likely to take the position that by shooting off this information in an e-mail to a stranger, you were essentially waiving your right to privacy on the facts in question. Then again, if I was the judge, I'd just take the initial court filing and stamp PWNED on it with a big, red stamp and send a scan of it to The Smoking Gun. This is reason #1456 why I'm not a judge.)

[Axxon]

That's how I see it too. Is this a gentlemanly thing to do? No. But are people cheating on their spouses worth defending? No.


But again, what if someone else forged your information and submitted it? Simply put, the person posting the information had no idea whether the information was valid or not and that's an indefensible act therefore criticizing him isn't necessarily defending cheaters which I wouldn't do. It's attacking idiots who make assumptions and act on them that deserve to be attacked.

[Drake]

Seriously, what are the chances that someone else would forge your information with the sole intent of hooking you up with an extra-marital affair? It isn't like anyone setting you up to take a fall would have had prior knowledge that this was a scam.

[Axxon]

Seriously, what are the chances that someone else would forge your information with the sole intent of hooking you up with an extra-marital affair? It isn't like anyone setting you up to take a fall would have had prior knowledge that this was a scam.

I don't know. I've entered friends of mine up for various stupid things like free magazine subsriptions, email porn, etc. I even once filled out an army recruitment add for a friend when I was in high school. My friends have done similar to me. It doesn't have to be someone being malicious for them to forge an account.

The fact is, there's NO way to verify that the information ISN'T forged so all you and the guy are doing is making assumptions and he's basing the decision to wreck lives based on mere assumptions that he doesn't bother to verify. I can't and don't defend that.

[Drake]

So, tracing this little scandal around the web, I got to thinking about those stupid little e-mail disclaimers that I'm starting to see more and more often -- you know, the ones that threaten legal action if you do anything inappropriate with the e-mail you've received. Apparently, these are becoming more widely used, but may be of only limited legal utility, in which case, they become just stupid and pretentious.

Anyway, I found this one while scouting out the current legal situation with disclaimers:


Disclaimer:
By sending an email to ANY of my addresses you are agreeing that:

1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends itself to. In particular, I may quote it on usenet.
3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may be included on your message.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to have to start using that one on all of my e-mails, especially point #4. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Great find Drake, me likey.

[Drake]

Or maybe something simpler like: My disclaimer kicks your disclaimer's ass.

[Axxon]

So, tracing this little scandal around the web, I got to thinking about those stupid little e-mail disclaimers that I'm starting to see more and more often -- you know, the ones that threaten legal action if you do anything inappropriate with the e-mail you've received. Apparently, these are becoming more widely used, but may be of only limited legal utility, in which case, they become just stupid and pretentious.

Anyway, I found this one while scouting out the current legal situation with disclaimers:



I'm pretty sure that I'm going to have to start using that one on all of my e-mails, especially point #4. :)

Oh, in that case no one would ever send anyone elses information in. :rolleyes:

That was meant for the disclaimer not for Drake btw.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I even once filled out an army recruitment add for a friend when I was in high school.

Note to self: Do not become friends with Axxon. :)

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't think any married guy sends this type of thing as a "joke" unless he has a seriously self-destructive streak.

You're right, but again, does just sending an e-mail constitute cheating on your spouse? Does talking to a prostitute mean you have broken your marriage vows? Is dry-humping your wife's sister wrong? Who's to judge?

[CamEdwards]

You're right, but again, does just sending an e-mail constitute cheating on your spouse? Does talking to a prostitute mean you have broken your marriage vows? Is dry-humping your wife's sister wrong? Who's to judge?

I think your spouse is the one to judge.

[Axxon]

Note to self: Do not become friends with Axxon. :)

Hey, I didn't start it. :)

What's even worse was the guy who would call every 800 number that came on the tv whenever he was at someone elses house. Didn't bother me much but it drove one of our friends totally insane.

[Axxon]

I think your spouse is the one to judge.

If you're a mormon that would be your spice. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

Let's say that instead of advertising for free sex, this guy was advertising something else on craigslist, let's say a product that he was selling. And in his ad, he said to email him your credit card number. A few people did, and he published the names and credit cards numbers of all the guys that were stupid enough to email him. Wouldn't that result in a tangible loss for the emailers, the same as posting the sex emails? Doesn't the poster in both cases use false pretenses to execute a premeditated plan to punish the individual that thinks he is engaging in a legal activity? Even if both situations aren't illegal, shouldn't both of them be illegal? If not, what makes the sex thing different?

[Raven Hawk]

I don't think any married guy sends this type of thing as a "joke" unless he has a seriously self-destructive streak. This sounds like jshipman logic.

[Glengoyne]

I'd think the guy who started this had better be independently wealthy, because even if you are in the right, you can still be sued. Once sued, you can either pony up the bucks to defend yourself through a lawyer, or go it on your own. Lawsuits are expensive, even if you've done no wrong.

[Ben E Lou]

I think it's fair to say that I stand corrected on the right of ownership with respect to correspondence. So I'll fall back on the ol' common sense argument that you should never commit to writing (much less to the internet) what you might not want other people to know about you. :)

(For the record, I think the "private fact" bit of the equation might be the hardest part to prove in court. If I was a judge handling this case, I'd be pretty likely to take the position that by shooting off this information in an e-mail to a stranger, you were essentially waiving your right to privacy on the facts in question. Then again, if I was the judge, I'd just take the initial court filing and stamp PWNED on it with a big, red stamp and send a scan of it to The Smoking Gun. This is reason #1456 why I'm not a judge.)If this thing gets in front of a jury, then it becomes another situation entirely. With many, many juries, emotions tend to override the law. And, let's face it, if there are women on said jury, the "he-got-what-he-deserved-he-ain't-getting-any-money" argument will probably play very, very well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile, in a related story ...
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060909/D8K18M2G3.html
LEVITTOWN, Pa. (AP) - Police in Bucks County have charged 12 women after an investigation into prostitutes who allegedly have been advertising on the Web site Craigslist.

After police received a tip in August about alleged prostitutes advertising on the site, investigators called cell phone numbers in local listings that advertised "GFEs" - girlfriend experiences - asking for payment in "ro$e$" or "125 donations."

The undercover investigators agreed to meet the women at motels, and almost all 12 were arrested within two minutes, he said.

Several of the women who were arrested had brought along their boyfriends, and five men were arrested on drug charges, police said.

Similar sting operations have led to prostitution charges against women in states including Maryland, New York, Oregon and New Hampshire.

Craigslist spokeswoman Sue MacTavish Best said the site cooperates with law enforcement and has a flagging system that allows users to bring prohibited content to the company's attention so it can be removed.

[st.cronin]

Talk about apples and oranges. It's an issue of "invasion of privacy" when someone uses covert means to obtain information when you should reasonably expect to be private, such as wiretapping your phone without a court order. This is an issue where people have willingly given information in a format where there is no reason to expect it to be private.

There would be if someone submitted false information, such as providing someone else's name and photo, and he published that information. That would fit the textbook definition of libel.

Well, yes. I do realize the differences. FWIW, I don't believe there is should be anything like a right to privacy, but on the other hand, I think this guy deserves a few punches in the mouth.