Why expose yourself, when you could expose your friends?

[denny]

From a friend's inbox:

I understand that you are currently involved in the Lifestyle known as BDSM and have numerous active contacts within this community.

The Daily Mail are compiling an expose on the people who practice this lifestyle within this community and use the website known as WWW.informedconsent.co.uk

You have been put forward as an unnamed source within an advising capacity to this story.

Anyone who co operates will be protected against exposure as we will take care of all sources.

You may contact news desk via Philip A Farmer on [a phone number] alternatively foward your response to [an email address]

Sincerely
Philip A Farmer

It'd be nice to believe that nobody would be crap enough to take them up on this lovely offer, but unfortunately I'm sure they'll get their info from someone.


Update: contact details obfuscated

Update2: apparently IC is suffering a bit of a hoax email attack around it at present, so this should probably be viewed with some suspicion. The person I got it from did tell me that they'd checked the headers, but they've subsequently taken down their own blog post on the subject.

Comments

[dakeyras.livejournal.com]

"Hi, we think you practise BDSM, which at least to a certain extent probably means that you support it in some way - do you want to help us vilify it as bad, evil, wrong and oh-God-won't-someone-think-of-the-children as we do with everything that's not middle-class-vanilla-marriage-and-2.4-kids?"

Wasn't it the Daily Hatemail that ran an exposé on polyamoury and cursed everyone who practises it to eternal damnation?

[hazyjayne.livejournal.com]

Yes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=421032&in_page_id=1766&in_a_source=&ito=1490)!

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

While I'm inclined to spread the warning about this knut, I wonder whether putting his contact details in isn't just going to help do his "research" for him. I'm not sure whether those who'd appreciate the warning would do anything useful with the phone number for a start.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Hrm, fair point - I figured people might want to Google it. My friend did phone it, and apparently it is the Daily Mail newsdesk and they do have an investigative journalist by that name.

*obfuscates*

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

Actually I see no problem with the name, as it will be useful for people to recognise it if he starts contacting them. I just wouldn't want to help spiteful people who'd phone hims straight up and spread malicious gossip, which I'm sure he'd happily treat as a rock-solid source.

Anyone who wants to complain about him - or even supply info, though I wouldn't recommend it - will then at least have to look him up or write, rather than being given a free bitch-line.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've left the name, just fuzzed the phone and email.

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

anti-cynicism....

Not a chance to 'tell the other side of the story' ?

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

in an 'expose' ?

[babysimon]

Well, I'm sure that's what they'd tell you they were doing.

[mirabehn.livejournal.com]

If it were a different paper, maybe. But this *is* the Daily Mail. :-(

[aiwendel.livejournal.com]

fair point!

[mirabehn.livejournal.com]

Oh for fuck's sake. GRRRR!

Incidentally, did anyone else pick up a slightly threatening tone here:

Anyone who co operates will be protected against exposure as we will take care of all sources.

?

"If you talk to us we won't use your name in our article. If you don't then we reserve the right to invade your privacy and fuck your life up." The word "co-operate" says it all. "Hi, we have decided that we are entitled to pass judgement on your lifestyle. We are going to expose you for the freaks you are, but if you play nice and *co-operate* with this and shop your friends, we'll let you off for good behaviour."

I could go on, but if I start ranting about exactly how much I hate the Daily Mail for such a vast number of reasons, I'd be here all day, and I have things to do.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

"Slightly" threatening, no. I thought it was fairly blatant.

[mirabehn.livejournal.com]

Heh, yes. You're right of course. :-(

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Erk, that's worrying.

Apologies if I'm asking an obvious question, but can I confirm if the email headers look reasonably like it came from the Daily Mail? Whilst I've no doubt the Daily Hate would do something like this, I wonder if there's the possibility of someone faking this just to stir up some trouble (although I suppose even if it is faked, that's still a reason to be wary if it causes people to send stories into the Daily Mail...)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I'm told the headers look correct, yes. The name and other contact details have been confirmed too.

[mmm-donuts.livejournal.com]

Oh FFS :(

[reddragdiva]

I tried emailing you about this and got a bounce - could you please email me?

[reddragdiva]

Never mind, I actually read your contact post!

[dryad-wombat.livejournal.com]

Hi sweets! The Christmas card I sent you just got returned because, like an idiot, I sent it to your old address. I'll try sending it to the new one. :)

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

mirabehn's pointed out some of the danger:

"If you talk to us we won't use your name in our article. If you don't then we reserve the right to invade your privacy and fuck your life up."

But not all of it: if someone's stupid and dishonest enough - or frightened enough - to co-operate, The Mail might still publish their name. Some people - bank managers, teachers, solicitors - are just too good a target to pass up the story.

The ostracision that would follow would be well-deserved, but not publishing would probably be worse. They know your name. They've Got you. Bit of private blackmail for cash? Or better still, you're under threat of exposure - both to the neighbours and your employer, and to the whole of your private life in the BDSM community - and you can be pressurised to keep on and on delivering names, addresses, photographs and private lives.

The word for people in this position is informer. It's how the Police states of Eastern Europe used to function.

I'm going to be blunt here: the State can imprison you, but that's not the only way to destroy a life. The media are just as frightening, overtly evil, and far, far less regulated. Also, they pay enough for information to suborn the servants of the state and the minions of the banks and telecomms companies.

I hope this is all a hoax, but the Mail gets its information from somewhere. From someone. From ways and means that are probably just as distasteful as this repulsive invitation to slander.