Just as the invention of the telephone spawned prank calls, the Internet spawned cyberpranks. Some of them are harmless, like the one going around a few years ago about the "built-in camera" in the computer. Others are illegal, like posing as someone else (usually a celebrity) for personal financial gain.
While some cyberpranks are obviously libelous (ex: if I open a MySpace account posing as some celebrity, and I post images of that celebrity without his/her consent, and I post information that isn't true about that celebrity, I can face civil action) or illegal (ex: the 419 Nigerian scam), there is a recently reported cyberprank that's causing ambiguity of what's illegal or libelous.
A web developer decided to play a prank. He wanted to know how many responses he could receive in 24-hours to a classified ad for sex. He posed as a "submissive woman looking for an agressive dom" and posted a sexually explicit photo on classified-ad site craigslist. Then, he publicly posted all of the unexpurgated responses, including all the personal information and the photos, on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
(For more information on the prank, here's the full story: Craigslist prank. Let me know if the link is broken by the time you read this.)
This prank opens up a number of legal issues:
- Is your privacy being violated if you voluntarily give personal information and the person uses it for his/her purposes?
- Are you open to civil or criminal litigation by misrepresenting yourself?
- Are you open to civil action for posting personal information about someone else which could cause damage to the person's livelihood?
- Is craigslist liable for the fallout from this prank?
Here is my take:
Is your privacy being violated if you voluntarily give personal information and the person uses it for his/her purposes?
A general answer regarding a "violation of privacy" - if you did not willingly reveal personal information to the person who received it (ex: someone ran a stealth program on a site to collect information), the answer is yes. However, if you willingly reveal your private information, the answer is no, your privacy is not being violated. If I want something to remain private, I don't reveal the information.
However, what if the person who is collecting the information is misrepresenting the reason why he's collecting the information? Usually, many sites who are collecting your information explicitly tell you (in their privacy policies) what they are going to do with your information, and they explicity warn you about revealing your public information on their public forums. I think that it still stands that if you willingly reveal the information, your privacy is not being violated.
Are you open to civil or criminal litigation by misrepresenting yourself?
This really is a tough question. In some cases, it's obvious. If I pretend to be a disaster victim to collect donations, I am going to face criminal charges if I get caught. In some cases, misrepresentation is legal. For example, the TV show
Dateline (on US TV network NBC) does a show with the cooperation with legal authorities where the investigative reporters pose as 12 and 13 year old children on the Internet to catch sexual predators.
However, what about this cyberprank case? From a criminal standpoint, there doesn't appear to be any laws being broken. From a civil standpoint, it's pretty ambiguous (see the next question).
Are you open to civil action for posting personal information about someone else which could cause damage to the person's life?
Another tough question that I have a very hard time answering. This prank can cause some serious damage to a person's life. It could wreck marriages, and it could wreck careers. Plus, since the personal information (e-mails, phone numbers, IM accounts) was also published, it opens that person up to harassment.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone sues the prankster because of damage caused by the prank, but could the complainant win? I don't know. On one side, the prankster misrepresented himself, and the mark thought that he was dealing with a potential partner. The prankster used the information for his own gain (his amusement). On the other side, the action could have been used as grounds for divorce, or the person was involved in an occupation where the person must observe "morals clauses" (ex: clergy).
What about physical harm that happens to the person because of this action? For example, the person may attempt suicide over the reprocussions of the prank, or some zealot decides to physically attack the person over his indecent behavior. Is the prankster open to civil action then?
Is craigslist liable for the fallout from this prank?
I took a look at craigslist's terms of use, and they do warn the user about answering the classified ads with caution. They also state that you may encounter ads that are "misleading" because "you acknowledge that craigslist does not pre-screen or approve Content".
Is craigslist liable for the fallout of this prank? NO! Is craigslist irresponsible for not monitoring the ads more closely? YES!
I think that the fallout from this prank may cause the webmasters of craigslist to reconsider their policy of not pre-screening the ads before they are published.
I would love to hear your responses and opinions of this issue, especially from those of you with a legal background.
No comments:
Post a Comment