Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Craigslist Prankster Sued, Argues DMCA Abuse

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the respond-privately-wink-wink-nudge-nudge dept.

Privacy 478

destinyland writes "Though Sunday's New York Times dubbed him a spokesperson for internet trolls, Jason Fortuny's just been sued in federal court. Fortuny re-published over 180 responses to a fake sex ad on Craigslist in 2006 — but he's finally been located and issued with a summons. The victim argues Fortuny violated his privacy, and that the photo Fortuny re-published was copyrighted. Fortuny argues he re-published the photo to stand up to the victim's bogus DMCA notice, and that the gullible victim had voluntarily provided the photo. In a motion to the court Fortuny even argues that he helped publicize a privacy risk on the internet, whereas 'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'"

cancel ×

478 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Punishment (5, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 years ago | (#24479853)

'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'

I guess the punishment is what his victims want.

Re:Punishment (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 years ago | (#24480199)

I guess the punishment is what his victims want.

And he files bankruptcy in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Re:Punishment (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480499)

I guess the punishment is what his victims want.

Personally, I consider their desire for revenge to be justified. Public humiliation is no laughing matter.

EPIC LULZ (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24479883)

OMG getting sued is such epic lulz for a troll, right?

Re:EPIC LULZ (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480315)

Only if the dude suing is actually hurt/offended/upset.

If he's being sued for the LULZ, it's EPIC FAIL.

Re:EPIC LULZ (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480457)

no. that's undeniably lulzy.

Re:EPIC LULZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480689)

Only faggots use the words epic fail. And FTW. And fanboy.

Re:EPIC LULZ (1)

ag3ntugly (636404) | about 6 years ago | (#24480747)

you just used em all!

*Sigh* (5, Insightful)

Tsoat (1221796) | about 6 years ago | (#24479891)

Classic forum troll behavior when they get in trouble they are surprised and inset that they were actually helping. He does point out an uncomfortable truth though, there will always be forum trolls to annoy and confound the masses with their stupidity and ill-logic.

Re:*Sigh* (5, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | about 6 years ago | (#24480129)

Well, yes and no.

It's no great accomplishment to trick people if they trust you. You can argue that people should be less trusting -- and I'd have to agree -- but for the hard-core troll, all trust is viewed as weakness, and the position they are taking is essentially that no one should trust anyone, ever. Obviously, society couldn't function in such a scenario.

At the end of the day, their "help" is not unlike shooting someone and then recommending that everyone start wearing ballistic armor. It's not an illogical suggestion, but it's more efficient to just apprehend the shooter than to supply everyone with armor.

Re:*Sigh* (5, Insightful)

timholman (71886) | about 6 years ago | (#24480569)

It's no great accomplishment to trick people if they trust you. You can argue that people should be less trusting -- and I'd have to agree -- but for the hard-core troll, all trust is viewed as weakness, and the position they are taking is essentially that no one should trust anyone, ever. Obviously, society couldn't function in such a scenario.

Yet my experience has been that hard-core trolls are generally outraged when the tables are turned and their trust is in turn violated. They can dish it out, but never take it.

It's impossible to generate an ounce sympathy for anyone in this story. Anyone who would pull such a prank needs a life, a soul, and a conscience to begin with. And any married man who would respond to such an ad is a contemptible idiot by definition.

illogic is the word you're looking for (nt) (1)

Layth (1090489) | about 6 years ago | (#24480593)

(nt) means no text

Troll? No. (1, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24479917)

I wouldn't consider this guy a troll. A prankster, maybe, but not a troll. Come on, though. Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads is just comedy GOLD!

Re:Troll? No. (4, Insightful)

CriX (628429) | about 6 years ago | (#24479981)

I think at least one marriage was broken up because of this ordeal. It struck me a seriously a-hole move of his, and not very funny.

Re:Troll? No. (5, Insightful)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about 6 years ago | (#24480001)

Right, because the respondent didn't already have problems with his marriage.

Re:Troll? No. (4, Interesting)

CriX (628429) | about 6 years ago | (#24480121)

I'm not vouching for infidelity and don't tell me this prankster was out to do any good. He was doing it to humiliate these people. Still, in the end it clearly does illustrate that you have to be careful what you send over the tubes.

Re:Troll? No. (-1, Flamebait)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 6 years ago | (#24480361)

I hope someone breaks his fucking skull. Yet another argument against the continued existence of Craigslist. It's nothing but fraud, fraud and more fraud, and a long , long line of people who get conned.

Re:Troll? No. (4, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | about 6 years ago | (#24480435)

Really? I've bought and sold legit stuff on Craigslist. A lot easier than dealing with ebay.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 6 years ago | (#24480675)

Really? I've bought and sold legit stuff on Craigslist. A lot easier than dealing with ebay.

Well, I've known several people to try to use it. All were approached exclusively by cash-cheque-forward-money-scammers, and one got burned for almost a grand. None of them got approached by a single legitimate person.

The only venue in which I've heard of anyone having success with Craigslist is anonymous forums. Like this one. Not knowing anything about who you are, it's just as likely that you personally rip people off and want to keep the money train rolling as it is that you legitimately use the service. Your referral, therefore, means nothing.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24480825)

The only venue in which I've heard of anyone having success with Craigslist is anonymous forums. Like this one. Not knowing anything about who you are, it's just as likely that you personally rip people off and want to keep the money train rolling as it is that you legitimately use the service. Your referral, therefore, means nothing.

You seem to be quite paranoid about these con-artists. Paranoid to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't condemn Craigslist is likely a con-artist himself, and is trying to lure you back into their organized crime ring.

Do you also believe that the government is monitoring your brain waves?

Baby and the bath water? (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | about 6 years ago | (#24480451)

Slashdot is full of trolls...should we get rid of it, too?

Trolls and Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480501)

Don't get rid of me please, I'm a nigger! And a troll!!

Re:Baby and the bath water? (0, Troll)

oyenstikker (536040) | about 6 years ago | (#24480519)

If it would get rid of the editors too, then yes.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

Four_One_Nine (997288) | about 6 years ago | (#24480603)

Craigslist is nothing but fraud? I think not.

The vast majority of people that I know who have been taken in by fraud are trying to do something illegal or immoral when they are taken advantage of.

The Nigerian 419 scam only works with people willing to break the law - so the people who are taken in by the 419 scam are not 'innocent bystanders' they are amateur con men (and women) who got conned

Looking for sex on craigslist? Seriously - how is someone who got embarrassed trying to get a girl on a FREE service where you can post just about anything for sale (at least until it gets flagged) in any way a victim?

To use an old, albeit highly relevant, cliche: If you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24480743)

For one, I find it hilarious that your name falls right into your first few lines.

Anyway, yes, your points are all valid. I have not heard of many scams involving legitimate activity on Craigslist, either. Most people I know who were scammed were trying to do the equivalent of buying speakers out of the back of a van.

Re:Troll? No. (4, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 6 years ago | (#24480759)

I'm not vouching for infidelity and don't tell me this prankster was out to do any good. He was doing it to humiliate these people.

Seriously, people. This guy put out a honeypot [wikipedia.org] . And those of low moral character took the bait. And he alleges that he learned from this (expecting no responses, getting nearly 200). IT Security folks do this all the time. He just took the technical security solution, and made it a social security solution. (Nevermind that the term "honeypot" actually originates closer to Fortuny's actions than the IT solution.)

And, I bet that those wives who filed for divorce over this are thanking Fortuny for exposing their (now or soon-to-be) ex-husbands for the cheaters that they are. The married men who responded obviously weren't thinking too much of their vows.

That said, I do think they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which was broken. Fortuny could have got his point across just fine by smudging the photos before posting them.

Re:Troll? No. (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24480085)

Asshole or not, it's not his fault if some married guy can't keep his dick in his pants.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

aevan (903814) | about 6 years ago | (#24480715)

Exactly. Who is to say that person hadn't also replied/met/whatever with other people advertising on the site, or with coworkers, etc.

Re:Troll? No. (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#24480099)

Wow. "I swear it's not my fault honey, blame the hooker". The husband (I assume) responded to a SEX ad on Craigslist and it's the fault of the prankster.

If I were that guys wife I'd send a thank you to Fortuny for helping me cut my losses.

Sounds like the Comedian who went to a telemarketers conference and started calling all the hotel rooms at 3 am and published the results.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | about 6 years ago | (#24480539)

Sounds like the Comedian who went to a telemarketers conference and started calling all the hotel rooms at 3 am and published the results.

Got a link for that?

Re:Troll? No. (2, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | about 6 years ago | (#24480225)

The marriage was broken up because the guy wanted to cheat on his wife but got caught instead. The prank actually did a wife a favor.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for this guy. If you want to sleep around then suck it up and get a divorce. Promising to be faithful and then sneaking off behind her back is beyond contempt.

yes, the married cheater deserved a comeuppance (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#24480401)

but if you understand the number of reasons why vigilante justice is wrong, then you understand how the manner in which he got his commeuppance is wrong

condemning fortuny is not standing up for the cheater. its standing against vigiliante justice

Re:yes, the married cheater deserved a comeuppance (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 6 years ago | (#24480545)

but if you understand the number of reasons why vigilante justice is wrong, then you understand how the manner in which he got his commeuppance is wrong

condemning fortuny is not standing up for the cheater. its standing against vigiliante justice

Your argument is not valid. This is not vigilante justice because cheating on your wife is not against the law, and her finding out about this and leaving you is also not against the law. So, you have a consequence that is legal that follows a behavior that is legal. That is not part of the definition of vigilante justice, no more than your boss is a "vigilante" if you get fired for telling him to fuck off.

huh? (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#24480763)

if someone thinks something is wrong and seeks justice on an issue, they are being a vigilante. doesn't matter what is actually legal or illegal, what matters is what they think is right and wrong

if you start shooting people who do a poor job at parallel parking, you are a "vigilante" in search of "justice" in your mind, regardless of the fact that poor parallel parking skills are not illegal

which is one of the reasons why vigilante justice is wrong: it is determined by the vigiliante, which, as you note, often delineates sharply from society-wide definitions and laws about right and wrong

so i don't know why you think it is valid to point out that someone is not a vigilante because they aren't dutifully following actual laws on the books. as if such a consideration ever had anything to do with what motivates any vigilante, ever, or has anything to do with the criteria for labelling someone a vigilante

It's a metaphor (1)

Kaseijin (766041) | about 6 years ago | (#24480767)

Your argument is not valid. This is not vigilante justice because cheating on your wife is not against the law, and her finding out about this and leaving you is also not against the law.

It's a metaphor. The "vigilante" in this scenario is Fortuny, not the wife. The common principle is that two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:yes, the married cheater deserved a comeuppance (1)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24480685)

but if you understand the number of reasons why vigilante justice is wrong, then you understand how the manner in which he got his commeuppance is wrong

condemning fortuny is not standing up for the cheater. its standing against vigiliante justice

So, you're saying that only the cheater should tell his or her spouse of the extramarital activity, and anyone else who does is an outlaw vigilante that should be punishes?

Re:yes, the married cheater deserved a comeuppance (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24480781)

So which of these scenarios is acceptable?
  • Married guy solicits hooker. Hooker is actually an undercover cop
  • Married guy solicits hooker. Traffic cop fulfilling quota discovers him getting sucked off
  • Married guy solicits hooker. Motel night manager is a friend of his wife's
  • Married guy responds to NSA personal on craigslist. Woman is a friend of his wife's.
  • Married guy responds to NSA personal on craigslist. Fucks up the reply address and posts it to a mailing list.
  • Married guy responds to NSA personal on craigslist. He sends it from an email account his wife also uses, who discovers her reply back.
  • Married guy rsdponds to NSA personal on craigslist. Woman gets crabs from him and posts his picture to craigslist warning other people not to fuck him.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

nasor (690345) | about 6 years ago | (#24480277)

From the perspective of the guy who was trying to cheat, maybe - but I'm guessing that the wife who found out her husband is trying to hook up on the interenet is glad to know, even if she isn't happy with the knowledge.

Re:Troll? No. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480471)

Perhaps she'd have preferred if the rest of the world didn't find out at the same time.

Perhaps he'd never have gone through with the meeting?

Perhaps someone else thought it'd be fun to reply to an ad on craigslist in their friend's name and enclose a photo of their friend? That sounds like a pretty likely scenario amongst friends who play jokes on one another. Imagine if one of your friends did that and before you even found it, your 'reply' to a sex ad was posted on an internet site and gathering thousands of hits.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 6 years ago | (#24480437)

I think at least one marriage was broken up because of this ordeal

Seriously, though, who is responsible for that? The cheater is more responsible than the prankster, by many orders of magnitude. If I have an affair with some lady and then tell her husband and the marriage breaks up, nobody is going to sue me for the act of disclosing infidelity. (Uhh.. at least not in America, where this happend. I suppose the situation in some parts of Europe could be more interesting.) Arguing copyright violation is one thing, but the publishing of the picture did no more harm to the marriage than a careless word could do.

Re:Troll? No. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480555)

So was the marriage "broken up" because the husband responded to online sex solicitation -- or because he got caught?

Re:Troll? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480813)

I think at least one marriage was broken up because of this ordeal. It struck me a seriously a-hole move of his, and not very funny.

No one marriage was broken up by a respondent looking to cheat. I'm not saying the guy is not an a-hole but being an a-hole isn't illegal...if it were slashdot would be a digital ghosttown

Re:Troll? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480165)

He was featured in a NY Times Magazine article about trolling [nytimes.com] , so I think he flies the troll flag rather proudly.

Re:Troll? No. (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#24480219)

It COULD be comedy gold if you stripped the real identities from the responses before you make fun of them (even then it's a little prickish, considering you BAITED them). If you reveal the real identities of these duped people, it's not comedy. It's just being a mean-spirited, malicious asshole.

A kid who busts his ass stupidly trying to jump off a roof in a stunt--funny. Throwing a kid off a roof for fun--felony.

Re:Troll? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480301)

A kid who busts his ass stupidly trying to jump off a roof in a stunt--funny. Throwing a kid off a roof for fun--felony.

Oh, great. NOW what am I supposed to do on weekends?

Re:Troll? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480357)

Throwing a kid off a roof for fun--felony.

Speaking of which, do you think this was the right crowd to taunt? Getting sued might be the least of his worries.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | about 6 years ago | (#24480719)

A kid who busts his ass stupidly trying to jump off a roof in a stunt--funny. Throwing a kid off a roof for fun--felony.

Somehow I don't see how 'throwing a kid off a roof' and making the faces of cheating assholes public are connected.

Don't want to be humiliated? Don't do bad things.

Re:Troll? No. (3, Insightful)

bwcbwc (601780) | about 6 years ago | (#24480237)

Richard Pryor is comedy gold, too. But that doesn't give me the right to post transcripts or recordings of his material online, even if they were given to me personally by him. Just because I send you an email with a picture in it doesn't transfer the copyright of that material to you, nor does it give you a license to republish the material. His only fair use argument is going to be satire or parody, and that seems like a bit of a stretch. Not impossible, but he'll need a friendly court and a good lawyer. IANAL - JP (Just pontificating).

Re:Troll? No. (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 6 years ago | (#24480351)

Just because I send you an email with a picture in it doesn't transfer the copyright of that material to you, nor does it give you a license to republish the material.

Er, actually, it does, or at least, it can.

The article is pretty interesting... (1)

Lurker2288 (995635) | about 6 years ago | (#24480247)

I highly recommend it to those of you who have access. From the description given of this Fortuny guy, he deserves all the misery he gets and then some: the Craigslist stunt was far from the first time he's used the net to hassle people for the sheer hell of it.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 6 years ago | (#24480549)


Come on, though. Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads is just comedy GOLD!

Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads, but keeping identifying details anonymous? Comedy gold to some.
Re-publishing responses to fake sex ads and revealing identifying details? Pure douche-baggery.

Re:Troll? No. (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | about 6 years ago | (#24480553)

Yeah its "hilarious." Its a severe breach of privacy. If you like that joke, then I'm going to start a fake suicide hotline and replay the tapes on the web. I'll even insert my own amusing commentary. I'm not a troll, I'm "helping." Hey, if those people didnt want to be made fun of then they should not have been suicidal to begin with!

I hope this guy gets taken to the cleaners for what he did.

Re:Troll? No. (2, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24480607)

Providing counseling to a suicidal individual, and the records associated with it, falls under guidelines regulating medical records.

Re:Troll? No. (1)

WwWonka (545303) | about 6 years ago | (#24480563)

"comedy GOLD"?

You're that guy that rented American Pie XI aren't you?

Re:Troll? No. (1)

rjhubs (929158) | about 6 years ago | (#24480615)

This case could be interesting. I know there is a radio station in chicago that reads responses to their fake sex craiglist ads as part of their morning show.

Punishing one criminal (5, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 6 years ago | (#24479921)

NEVER changes or impacts the culture.

But if you punish enough criminals, you DO change and impact the culture.

This man is damaged piece of crap. I feel sorry for him, having been abused as a child, but that does not excuse him taking out his crap on the rest of us.

He is a semi-professional 'troll', going around pissing people off and laughing at them.

He routinely engages in low-level criminal actions, knowing that he is unlikely to get caught and arrested for doing things that are the equivelent of spray painting a car.

I hope he finally gets what he so richly deserves, legal punishment.

Re:Punishing one criminal (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24480135)

better yet, post a craigslist ad on his behalf:

Curious male (d-d free) seeks men to fulfill my gay-rape fantasy. Meet me at my house (xxxx, Holland, Michigan) tonight at 8. ~~ Rob

Re:Punishing one criminal (1)

pxlmusic (1147117) | about 6 years ago | (#24480263)

i've heard of that happening to some girl. some other girls got her raped/beaten.

just because you see it on a CL ad, doesn't mean that you are immune from consequences.

wasn't that on an episode of SVU?

Re:Punishing one criminal (0, Troll)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 years ago | (#24480137)

Punishing one criminal
NEVER changes or impacts the culture.

But if you punish enough criminals, you DO change and impact the culture

And how exactly do you see the culture being impacted?

From where I sit, the USA claims to be the "free-est" nation, yet has the largest prison population. People haven't stopped taking drugs, committing petty crimes, assaulting each other, falling asleep at the wheel, felonies haven't gone away, white collar crime is a game of 'catch me if you can', etc etc etc.

That said, I disagree with your notion that punishing one criminal does nothing. You send a top corporate executive to jail and it sends a very clear signal to the rest. The impact directly relates to the pool of those who could possibly be affected.

Re:Punishing one criminal (1)

dougmc (70836) | about 6 years ago | (#24480349)

I don't think the US has claimed to be the free-est nation in quite some time. 200 years ago, democracies/republics were perhaps rare, but more recently they've become much more common.

Re:Punishing one criminal (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 6 years ago | (#24480565)

From where I sit, the USA claims to be the "free-est" nation, yet has the largest prison population. People haven't stopped taking drugs, committing petty crimes, assaulting each other, falling asleep at the wheel, felonies haven't gone away, white collar crime is a game of 'catch me if you can', etc etc etc.

In fairness, he didn't say that "If you punish enough criminals, it discourages crime", but only that "you DO change and impact the culture".

Seems like, if you through enough people into prison, the culture is likely to get more degraded and thuggish. That's certainly an impact.

Re:Punishing one criminal (1)

foobsr (693224) | about 6 years ago | (#24480249)

But if you punish enough criminals, you DO change and impact the culture.

Well worth figuring out the impact, given the following.

Quote [correctionalnews.com] : "As reported in the May/June issue of Correctional News, the United States leads the world in the number of inmates per capita, with 750 inmates per 100,000 residents, according to the Pew report. During 2007, the U.S. prison population increased by more than 25,000 inmates to almost 1.6 million inmates, and local jails throughout the United States held 723,131 inmates at the end of 2007."

CC.

Yeah man, I agreee! (1)

deft (253558) | about 6 years ago | (#24480465)

"I hope he finally gets what he so richly deserves, legal punishment."

Good luck on your lawsuit against him! From the langauge of the email, you must be very upset it's only legal punishement you can provide!

Re:Punishing one criminal (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 6 years ago | (#24480477)

He routinely engages in low-level criminal actions, knowing that he is unlikely to get caught and arrested for doing things that are the equivelent of spray painting a car.

Can you elaborate? I've heard the story vaguely before, but I'm not aware of him damaging other people's property. As far as I've ever heard, all he does is post the responses he receives to his Craigslist ads. What else is he doing?

I don't feel too bad for Fortuny for getting sued, because he doesn't seem like that nice a guy, but I also don't really see where what he's doing is a crime. IANAL, but how is this different from all the other situations? If I had a website documenting letters I had received from my grandfather, without my grandfather's permission, would that be illegal? Seriously, I'm interested in these sorts of legal things.

Mostly, I don't even think this guy is doing anything all that immoral. I don't particularly recommend e-mailing pictures of your penis to anyone if you're going to be ashamed if friends/family find out. E-mail isn't all that private/secure to begin with. But I especially wouldn't send it to random people you don't know.

Seems like people were trolling for sex on Craigslist and they got caught. Later, they wish they hadn't gotten caught. When people get caught doing something they don't think they're supposed to be doing, they generally wish that they hadn't gotten caught. There's even a part of me that's glad that this guy is out there. The Internet is this place where people think they can do whatever they want and never get caught because it's so big and anonymous. They do some awful things sometimes and they're even careless about it. I think the whole system could use a little accountability.

Admittedly, on the other hand, I wouldn't particularly want my entire online history sent to my parents or my boss. And this is one place where I think this little experiment highlights another problem with the internet: it might never forget. I mean, send one embarrassing e-mail when you're a teenager, and it might get posted somewhere, cached, stored in archived, etc. 50 years later you're running for president, and it could pop up in the news. That's the reality we might be faced with in the future. Our whole lives documented, stored, indexed, searchable, and public. It's probably better that we realize this early on.

'war' + stock markup FraUD leaving US resourceless (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24479941)

nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. along with deception & coercion, helps us remain dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Re:'war' + stock markup FraUD leaving US resourcel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480655)

Professor, their STARTing to catch on too US.
We need more time (11:81.0pm).

their is no moon,

~%%%%%

What a twit... (3, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | about 6 years ago | (#24479967)

The guy may well be legally in the clear (although his argument that Craigslist's disclaimer that "you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading" allows him to legally engage in fraud strikes as ... unlikely). But there's no question that he's a jerk, and his whiny, pompous defense of himself makes him even more of a jerk.

No lawyer == supreme stupidity (5, Insightful)

capt.Hij (318203) | about 6 years ago | (#24480011)

The article does not explicitly say anything about his lawyer, and it sounds like he is doing this on his own. Whether he is right or wrong it will probably not matter unless he can find himself a decent lawyer. Going into legal proceedings without a lawyer is a train wreck in progress.

The only thing worse than trying to find sex on the internet is to get legal advice on the internet. Either way you are going to receive it the same way.

put more succinctly: (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#24480335)

if you look for sex on the internet you are getting into legal trouble, and if you look for legal advice on the internet you are going to get fucked

Worthless without pics? (4, Informative)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 6 years ago | (#24480015)

Anyone thinking of complaining that the summary is worthless without pics, near the bottom of TFA there is a link to the full list of responses and photos [encycloped...matica.com] at Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Be warned, it's NSFW ... in fact IMO it's not even safe if you're simply trying to maintain an appetite in anticipation of lunchtime

Re:Worthless without pics? (1)

mikael (484) | about 6 years ago | (#24480395)

The whole site (NSFW) has also been stored at archive.org [archive.org]

The guy is just a high school class clown - but at least class clowns had the common sense not to go around messing wit other peoples personal lives. He thought that anonymity in a large city would protect him, but that has been proven wrong.

New diet plan (1)

iceperson (582205) | about 6 years ago | (#24480557)

Guess I'll have to just bookmark this baby. Nothing like free appetite suppressants to help get back my girlish figure...

Rule #1 of troll club (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480045)

Pretty stupid troll if you ask me.

He knowingly told people his name and what he had done in that NYT article, so now his victims are trolling him IRL.

mod do3N (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480051)

Your own tobwel @in

I wanted to RTFA but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480075)

Error establishing a database connection :(

Re:I wanted to RTFA but... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 6 years ago | (#24480369)

Hmm... we need adaptive blog software. On a heavy load, generate and store a static version of the page and display that, until the traffic winds down. Or something.

ETHICAL????not even close (2, Informative)

pathos49 (838882) | about 6 years ago | (#24480095)

He goes onto a site and begins with a bait picture (which is a lie) to entice someone into a private conversation and then publishes the response. Anyone who thinks this is good natured humor knows little of human nature. This activity is particularly nasty because it often entices the dark side of owns nature to come out and then lays shame on them so this fucking worthless blogger can have something to write about. He was not conducting and experiment to prove any hypothesis, he was just looking for something to write about because his mind is very uncreative. Candid CAMERA THAT WAS FUNNY BECAUSE IN THE END THE PARTICIPANTS WERE LAUGHING TO. HERE THAT IS NOT THE CASE

Re:ETHICAL????not even close (1)

onecheapgeek (964280) | about 6 years ago | (#24480183)

So right or wrong should be determined by who is laughing? That line of thought scares me.

Re:ETHICAL????not even close (3, Interesting)

hansraj (458504) | about 6 years ago | (#24480365)

So right or wrong should be determined by who is laughing? That line of thought scares me.

And why?

What's wrong with assuming that if the "victim" laughs when s/he knows it was a prank, then it's ok otherwise not? Not that I pull any pranks on people, but I would like to hear your reason.

Re:ETHICAL????not even close (1)

waffledoodle (1070284) | about 6 years ago | (#24480447)

That is (LOL) because (LOL) you are wrong. Ha ha!

Re:ETHICAL????not even close (1)

Animats (122034) | about 6 years ago | (#24480695)

Candid CAMERA THAT WAS FUNNY BECAUSE IN THE END THE PARTICIPANTS WERE LAUGHING TO. HERE THAT IS NOT THE CASE

(Ignoring the caps lock problem) Even Candid Camera (a forgotten TV show) ran into legal problems. Once they had a setup in a hat store in NYC, and when a customer came in and put down his hat, they tried to sell it back to him. While the customer was arguing with the actor behind the counter, a NYPD cop walks by, notices the argument, and comes in. The cop looks at the hat, sees that it's obviously used, arrests the actor behind the counter and cuffs him. The show's director comes out and tells the cop it's a TV show with a hidden camera. The cop says "we'll let the judge sort this out", and gets on his radio to call the wagon to take away the whole crew.

if you read the sunday nyt article (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#24480113)

you will note that fortuny has a history of sexual abuse as a child, that his family turned a blind eye towards. which goes far, pop psychology wise, to explaining what would motivate him to do his craigs list "expose": an attempt to find empowerment over an issue which means helplessness to him psychologically

so, in a way, his trolling is just therapy, catharsis. which is my whole theory of trolling: far from pointless negative and twisted, online trolling is merely a way to jettison asocial impulses harmlessly (relatively harmlessly) on the internet

having said that, and fully appreciative of the fact that free speech fundamentalists will come out in support of fortuny, i say to you free speech fundamentalists: no law or government can protect you from the consequences of what you say. in other words, there are elements of speech which have every expectation of protection. then there are elements of free speech, that, while a good argument can be made for their official, societal level acceptance, doesn't mean some asshole somewhere isn't going to get upset and try to do something about what you say

insulting pictures of mohammed, for example. yes, a sound understanding of free speech means that insulting pictures of mohammed should be tolerated. however, a legal, societal understanding of tolerance on this issue does not protect you from the anger of religious fundamentalists who could care less about tolerance

you don't have protection from the consequences of what you say, regardless of the legal environment. making enemies of random guys looking for easy sex is not a situation where a idealistic expectation of free speech without consequences gets you very far

remember that about free speech: it has consequences. if you get upset about that idea, or expect government to somehow protect you from the consequences of what you say, you really don't understand the whole notion that with freedom comes responsibility, which is the only notion that will keep speech truly free

like any right in this world, it carries with it responsibility. shoot your mouth of without any regard for conesequences, and you will discover that consequences happen, that not everyone in society is a tolerant ethical individual

No, it's the lawsuit that's pure comedy gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480139)

Fortuny argues he re-published the photo to stand up to the victim's bogus DMCA notice, and that the gullible victim had voluntarily provided the photo.

Ah yes, because as we all know, voluntarily providing someone a copy automatically gives the person full rights to re-publish.

Fortuny even argues that he helped publicize a privacy risk...

Let me guess, this fuck-up of human being is representing himself? He'll soon find that an excuse that might have worked in middle school for an innocent prank, will not work in court for seriously anti-social (and in some cases, damaging) behavior.

Two important lessons... (3, Insightful)

kahei (466208) | about 6 years ago | (#24480149)

1) Don't send your personal contact information to strangers on the internet, especially not in answer to a sex ad on Craigslist, especially not attached to a picture of your erect penis, because doing so is very likely to cause you all manner of trouble. If you do such a thing you are a twit.

2) If you are in a situation in which your life would be ruined if you were known to be into BDSM, *don't make it known that you're into BDSM*! If you do, you're a twit!

2) If you demonstrate that someone is a twit, they are more likely to get cross and sue you than to stop being a twit.

Sure, the guy was kind of a jerk and the whole thing is desperately unfunny like most trolls. But that doesn't mean he should be punished because there are so many twits about.

Re:Three important lessons... (3, Funny)

kahei (466208) | about 6 years ago | (#24480187)

...I mean three! I mean three lessons! Oh.... argh.

One More Lesson: (3, Funny)

GogglesPisano (199483) | about 6 years ago | (#24480413)

3) If you're going to violate the DMCA, you should join the Air Force first. [slashdot.org]

Re:Two important lessons... (1)

AioKits (1235070) | about 6 years ago | (#24480417)

While I do agree the internet has it's fair share of twits, I just keep thinking, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." This guy didn't really stop though, he made a concentrated effort to be a general ass. It's not his job either to school internet twits.

1 - Oh yeah, totally agree with this one.
2 - Gotta tell someone, else you're never going to meet someone to scratch that BDSM itch. They assumed this guy was someone safe to tell.
2 - I've been proven a twit a few times before. Each time it was kind of a 'haha, got me' type deal. If you keep going after people just for the fun of it, don't be surprised when one of the twits fires back.

I guess this guy should be happy they're trying to sue him instead of personally tracking him down and beating the shit out of him. There will be twits, and there will be trolls. Being too much of either leads to trouble, somewhere.

Re:Two important lessons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480639)

Sure, the guy was kind of a jerk and the whole thing is desperately unfunny like most trolls. But that doesn't mean he should be punished because there are so many twits about.

[ extremism for effect ]
So rapists should not be punsihed, because there are so many easy vulnerable women (or sometimes men) about?

[/extremism for effect]

I think you need to revisit your beliefs.

Lol trolling is a culture? (1)

nanowired (881497) | about 6 years ago | (#24480353)

Well, I guess its time for a good-ol-fashioned Internet ethnic cleansing.

imo... (1)

Aurisor (932566) | about 6 years ago | (#24480409)

From reading the article, it seems clear that he has caused intentional harm to these people.

I think a good attorney should be able to get some money out of him, especially if he's not investing in a good defense attorney.

Warped (1)

taff^2 (188189) | about 6 years ago | (#24480469)

Fortuny: 'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'

Judge: 'No it won't change or even impact online culture, but you're being punished for being a twat. Now give me my fucking pictures back, and get the fuck out of my courtroom.'

Wait a second... (3, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#24480479)

Sorry for the double-top post, but...

How is this ANY different than Chris Hansen on Dateline NBC in "To Catch a Predator." Other than the "bait" not pretending to be 17, what's the difference?

Re:Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480641)

It's not - they're both hilarious!

This was a great experiment that generated a ton of lulz. I think he probably should've anonymized the results before he posted them, though. Or done it from behind 7 proxies.

Troll vs. Troll (1)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | about 6 years ago | (#24480515)

One troll lies and uses anonymity on the web to damage people. The other uses lawyers. Not much difference, really.

oh my (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480529)

Anonymous does not forgive, and we do not forget.

We will deal with the plaintiff.

Wow! (3, Funny)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 6 years ago | (#24480585)

I didn't know so many men sent naked pictures while replying to a personal ad.

More on Fortuny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480637)

Recent NYT article on trolls, including Fortuny [nytimes.com]

I think more serious than men getting into trouble with their wives is the (alleged) fact that a couple of people lost their jobs.

Honest Yer Honor (1)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | about 6 years ago | (#24480739)

I was just doing research when I downloaded all those kiddie porn pictures.

Hope this sad loser gets what's coming to him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24480797)

Sexually humiliating strangers isn't funny, and Fortuny should get the living crap beaten out of him for this. Hope the judge sends him up the river or at least fines his ass into bankruptcy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>