Man's personal life revealed on facebook by eavesdropping stanger!

Max Power1

Prodigious wrote: »

Or .. you know .... Don't cheat?

Sure where's the fun in that? :P

Stark

At first read I thought "God what a bitch". But thinking about it, if I was stuck in a carriage listening to some idiot brag to the whole carriage about his conquests for 2 hours too, I'd probably be tempted to do the same.

B.A._Baracus

While on one hand he is a prick for cheating on his wife and bragging about it ... on the other, she has no right to put his picture online etc. It's not like she was friends with the wife or anything. Just some random stranger.

To hell with the both being honest. But she has just left herself open to be sued by him. It is America after all.

batistuta9

Killer Wench wrote: »

She doesn't know the full context of the story. For all that she knows, the men could be a group of actors who decided to go on a public train, be obnoxious, and see if anyone intervenes. Or, maybe they had a contest amongst themselves on who could fabricate the most outlandish story ever. He's really free to say whatever he wants. She took what he said at face value, yes, but then she took the extra steps to post his face, share what she thinks is the truth, and then told people to pass it along.

What im asking is: what happens if the guy comes out now and denies saying that?

Surely she has to prove he said it in the first place

It's her word against his, is it not?

batistuta9

Why does everyone believe the woman?

Them guys could've done anything to annoy her & she's just taken revenge on them

she says the other guys were supposedly bragging too, they'll be known as well even if they haven't been snapped on camera. She could have a lot of lawsuits coming up

BostonB

BostonB wrote: »

Is it private if you are speaking loudly in a public space?

There's a massive difference between a couple of people being able to hear you and the entire world hearing you. How do people not manage to grasp this? People make decisions about what to say depending on who is listening. Recording someone without their knowledge is sneaky and underhanded. If I'm in the pub having a conversation with my mate, we're technically in public, but probably talking about things I wouldn't want my parents/boss/friends to hear (depending on the topic). That some people seem to think anything you utter is fair game for broadcasting to the world is really scary.

Killer Wench

batistuta9 wrote: »

What im asking is: what happens if the guy comes out now and denies saying that?

Surely she has to prove he said it in the first place

It's her word against his, is it not?

I'll have to re-read the article but was it a video of him or simply a photograph? He could deny saying that he said. And, that brings me to wonder if he was sitting on a train bragging with a bunch of other men, why was this one man singled out?

batistuta9

Killer Wench wrote: »

I'll have to re-read the article but was it a video of him or simply a photograph? He could deny saying that he said. And, that brings me to wonder if he was sitting on a train bragging with a bunch of other men, why was this one man singled out?

In the link in the OP it says she heard them & put a picture on FB, they've the same picture.
I haven't heard of any video

Looks like he's the one sitting facing her - she's able to get the shot of him

That also makes him sound to be the main bragger, no one wants to hate on the back of some seats now do they much easier with a face

Cody Pomeray

ilovesleep wrote: »

If he was talking pure cowsh1te in front of his friends, he needs to get help for lying. What would be his purpose of lying to his friends about something like that? Self esteem issues?

Who knows, but it's not a matter for public adjudication either. The law doesn't 'do' retributive justice via social media.

BostonB wrote: »

Is it private if you are speaking loudly in a public space?

It can be, yes.

I have no idea how things work in the USA in relation to privacy. But if this happened in Europe, the person who took the images and posted the information would have to demonstrate (among other things) a public interest in what they were posting. It is not adequate for a video or images simply to serve as entertainment, and this is particularly high bar to overcome in respect of private individuals.

On the other hand, for a breach of privacy to have occurred, the subject of the breach (the cheater) would have to demonstrate a certain level of seriousness or sensitivity of the information being "megaphoned". Obviously, there is no doubt but that it applies in relation to his marriage and his sex life.

So yes, in case anyone feels like doing something similar on the Dart or Luas, this is private information and you'd be better advised just to ask the person in question to stfu.

Lemming

endacl wrote: »

It's not libel if its true.

Prove the conversation was true with nothing other than a picture of some guy sitting in a seat.

What's that there Ted? Proof? Sure that's a mad yoke altogether Ted!

Thwip!

Hehehe, he's sitting under a poster that says "Joy Rider" :P

Rasheed wrote: »

Help for lying? Go way outta that! Have you or someone you know ever lied in front of friends to act 'cool' or get respect? Yeah it's sad if he is lying or bullshiiting but it's very common!

What's cool about cheating? Surely someone wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend they cheated and tell that to their friends, who could in turn feel obligated to tell his wife?

Seachmall

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But if this happened in Europe, the person who took the images and posted the information would have to demonstrate (among other things) a public interest in what they were posting. It is not adequate for a video or images simply to serve as entertainment, and this is particularly high bar to overcome in respect of private individuals

Can you source this?

I'm an amateur street photographer and I've never heard of anything like that before but it sounds very relevant to me.

Cody Pomeray

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you source this?

As an amateur street photographer I've never heard of anything like that before.

Yep. I was thinking of the cases of Caroline of Monaco and Axel Springer took against Germany, specifically. The judgements in those case, and in previous caseshave established about 5-6 criteria that need to be met in dismissing a breach of privacy.

These criteria include a genuine public interest (i.e. the person should already be a celebrity), and another element of the criteria is the gravity of the consequences of publication.

In other words, if Enda Kenny was photographed bashing youngsters around the head on Grafton Street, that would not be a breach of privacy.

However, if Joe Bloggs were photographed smacking his kid in his car, or on a train, and a reasonable person foresaw that publication would lead to vilification, that would possibly be a serious breach of privacy.

Nate--IRL--

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you source this?

I'm an amateur street photographer and I've never heard of anything like that before but it sounds very relevant to me.

You don't publish allegations about the people you photograph though. It doesn't apply to you.

Nate

Rasheed

Thwip! wrote: »

What's cool about cheating? Surely someone wouldn't be stupid enough to pretend they cheated and tell that to their friends, who could in turn feel obligated to tell his wife?

It's not cool at all but who know what sort of 'friends' these are. All could have blowing about all their conquests and your man felt he had to keep up.

Nobody knows the situation. Not even the woman that decided to put this on Facebook. Everyone had decided to vilify this man without knowing a single detail about this mans life only what he said to a group of lads he was with.

Even if he's cheating, even if he's the biggest player that ever walked this earth, that woman had no right to out him like that. She has made a laughing stock of him and more importantly, his wife and family who are completely innocent in all this.

Thwip!

Rasheed wrote: »

It's not cool at all but who know what sort of 'friends' these are. All could have blowing about all their conquests and your man felt he had to keep up.

Nobody knows the situation. Not even the woman that decided to put this on Facebook. Everyone had decided to vilify this man without knowing a single detail about this mans life only what he said to a group of lads he was with.

Even if he's cheating, even if he's the biggest player that ever walked this earth, that woman had no right to out him like that. She has made a laughing stock of him and more importantly, his wife and family who are completely innocent in all this.

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

Norwesterner

BostonB wrote: »

Is it private if you are speaking loudly in a public space?

Yes actually.
What next?
Photos of people in the waiting room of the STD clinic?
It's a public area after all.

citytillidie

I wonder what the reaction would be if the roles were reversed ie a man taking a pic of a woman suppositly bragging about having an affair

Thwip!

I'd imagine it would be the same (at least I know mine would be). Cheating is cheating.

Granted there does tend to be a lot of bias when it comes to that. Women who cheat will generally get a more aggressive reaction from people than men that cheat. Lot of what's called "Slut-shaming" happens, which is ridiculous. The gender doesn't matter, it's the act

batistuta9

Thwip! wrote: »

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

Even if he did say it, he didn't do it online for millions and the nsa to gawk over

Peanut

Thwip! wrote: »

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

It wouldn't be a very good argument though, would it.

Prodigious

Wasn't me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Hz17C4is

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Interestign point: aren;tthe oblighe to at leat blur the picture without permission?

Did you just have a stroke? :-P

Rasheed

Thwip! wrote: »

One could argue that it pales in comparison to the laughing stock he's made of his wife and family

One could. And if he is cheating then I feel very sorry for his wife. But if I was in her position I'd rather he told me or it come out in the town, as these things invariably do, instead of millions knowing.

Stereomaniac

For sure, it must be hard for his wife if he is cheating and this is how she has found out about it, but I would also be of the belief that he should've watched what he was saying too.

Femme_Fatale

Nah I can't see how it's defensible for an uninvolved party to record him, no matter how much of a loudmouth twat he was being.

nick 56

That train looks nicer than the CIE ones, as for the other stuff she is in the wrong. He is a prat , hope they both get bunions.

Meritocracy Wins

ilovesleep wrote: »

But the woman hasn't destroyed his life. If what she heard was true and he's a cheater, he's done it all himself.

What was her purpose of doing this? To spread news in the hope that his main partner picks up on it, perhaps? Granted an absolute stranger who knows nothing about him hasn't helped, news like that will break out anyway eventually.

There's no excuse what so ever for cheating. It's greed and selfishness and nothing but.

Your response is more to do with your own case I'd say. If I am correct you are the poster with the ex that seems to unnerve you now and again. If I am wrong I apologise.

I believe the man is a plonker but it doesn't give people the right to stick a phone in his face and then plaster his story all over the public domain. He is a cheat, she is a busybody who I suspect has had some bloke cheat on her and this is payback.

It is a worrying trend that a private conversation can be broadcast to the world. Context can be lost and people can be hurt.

Meritocracy Wins

Meritocracy Wins wrote: »

Your response is more to do with your own case I'd say. If I am correct you are the poster with the ex that seems to unnerve you now and again. If I am wrong I apologise.

I believe the man is a plonker but it doesn't give people the right to stick a phone in his face and then plaster his story all over the public domain. He is a cheat, she is a busybody who I suspect has had some bloke cheat on her and this is payback.

It is a worrying trend that a private conversation can be broadcast to the world. Context can be lost and people can be hurt.

+1

I had a very awkward situation in the pub a while back when the people on the next table, who were eavesdropping on our conversation, took something we said totally out of context, without knowing us or anything about us, and decided we were racist. We explained what we were talking about (it had involved a private joke) and they apologised, but what if they'd recorded one incriminating sentence and put it on the internet? I told them it might be best that in future, they concentrated on their own conversation rather than eavesdropping on conversations that don't concern them, getting the wrong end of the stick and then making us explain ourselves. Whatever happened to the concept of minding your own business?

djmcr

Stark wrote: »

At first read I thought "God what a bitch". But thinking about it, if I was stuck in a carriage listening to some idiot brag to the whole carriage about his conquests for 2 hours too, I'd probably be tempted to do the same.

Wonder did she ever think of changing seats?

danniemcq

This could all be an elaborate ploy to show how much damage social network could cause?

i mean its only a photo and her word sayin that he boasted about cheating.

easily deniable by the guy by just saying that she was an auld bat who got annoyed at him for no reason or something stupid.

Or she is psycho. I went out with a chick once who told me she wanted to stab a mate of mine, no reason. Just didn't like him even though they had never talked or interacted bar seeing him in college. Just plain nuts and wanted to cause him serious harm.

Still though any port in a storm and when i told him the next morning we both had a good laugh but i made a promise not to see her again which i promptly broke but after that i stayed clear too

stateofflux

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nah I can't see how it's defensible for an uninvolved party to record him, no matter how much of a loudmouth twat he was being.

i agree with this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The thing is it's a moral issue, not a legal one. If it were a legal one and the guy was breaking the law somehow, I'd be siding with the woman a lot more at this stage.

But what gives her (or someone else) the right to turn around and say "my morals are better than yours and I have a right to do this"? Why? On what basis? Did you do a agree on it or soemthing?

Soemthing I've always wondered about socially conservative people, to be honest.

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But what gives her (or someone else) the right to turn around and say "my morals are better than yours and I have a right to do this"? Why? On what basis? Did you do a agree on it or soemthing?

To be honest the entire legal system is dependent on that mentality.

Saying "what you're doing conflicts with my moral beliefs and I will intervene" is what brings people to justice.

This particular case is just a grey area, but the principle is necessary for civilisation.

Yakult

Do not agree with the actions of this woman at all. Detest such a thing in fact.

If it was really bothering her so much why couldn't she just move?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

To be honest the entire legal system is dependent on that mentality.

Saying "what you're doing conflicts with my moral beliefs and I will intervene" is what brings people to justice.

This particular case is just a grey area, but the principle is necessary for civilisation.

I see your point, but we have first, a choice in who makes the laws; and secondly, a standard. Either an act is illegal, or it is not.

The second line is not true: who decides what "bringing people to justice" is in a moral issue?

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I see your point, but we have first, a choice in who makes the laws; and secondly, a standard. Either an act is illegal, or it is not.

The second line is not true: who decides what "bringing people to justice" is in a moral issue?

Laws in a democracy are formed when the majority of people agree that something is morally wrong in their own opinion and decide action should be taken. What constitutes as justice is supposed to be determined in the same manner (in actuality it often comes down to the discretion of the law makers and/or the prosecuting judge).

The only difference between that and this case was that here an individual made that decision, not a majority group.

But the principle of what occurred is the same.


When an individual inflicts their morals on another we consider it butting into other peoples' lives, when a majority do it we consider it democracy.

Cody Pomeray

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

who decides what "bringing people to justice" is in a moral issue?

The concept of justice is a moral intervention.

The laws are just the fences that mark the boundaries of our moral parameters.

So take privacy laws - most people accept that there is a moral right to privacy for each of us, and a moral right to freedom of expression for each of us. Most people tend to agree on where the balance lies, and so they demand the laws take heed of their moral judgement.

The law is not an authority on anything in itself. The law is the mere servant of public morality. It is a manmade structure which we can and must tear down, improve, and replace as our collective morality dictates.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

Laws in a democracy are formed when the majority of people agree that something is morally wrong in their own opinion and decide action should be taken. What constitutes as justice is supposed to be determined in the same manner (in actuality it often comes down to the discretion of the law makers and/or the prosecuting judge).

The only difference between that and this case was that here an individual made that decision, not a majority group.

But the principle of what occurred is the same.


When an individual inflicts their morals on another we consider it butting into other peoples' lives, when a majority do it we consider it democracy.

The key difference here is "majority of people" and "one person on a train with a camera". Also, the law is already in place when a judge gets to pass judgement, and has guidelines and acts to base his judgement on.

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The key difference here is "majority of people" and "one person on a train with a camera".

Absolutely, but the principle of moral intervention is what I'm getting at.

Also, the law is already in place when a judge gets to pass judgement, and has guidelines and acts to base his judgement on.

Of course, but he has the discretion to decide on certain matters such as how long a sentence or even if a custodial sentence is fitting or not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seachmall wrote: »

Absolutely, but the principle of moral intervention is what I'm getting at. Of course, but he has the discretion to decide on certain matters such as how long a sentence or even if a custodial sentence is fitting or not.

But he'll have a framework to decide upon.

The point of a legal system is to protect people and keep a semblance of order, I would say, rather then to impose moral guidelines onto people. Most people would argue that adultery is immoral, for example, but most people would not want to see it made illegal.

conorhal

Killer Wench wrote: »

Have y'all seen the website "People of Walmart". It's a website that features photos of people out shopping at Walmart. Usually, these images are of severely obese people, people with disabilities, people who dress funny, or whatever may be deemed appropriate for public ridicule. Photojournalists have always taken pictures of people out on the street and reported on the daily news. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while sitting on a public train and broadcasting your conversation loud enough for others to hear.

However, the woman does not know if what this man said was true or if he was embellishing simply because he was around friends. So, when she began spreading his image around the net with the words that he was a cheating husband, she began to publicly defame his character. The defense to libel is the truth, and now she has the burden of proving that he did in fact cheat on his wife.

Well I'm no legal expert or anything, but how can you libel sombody by quoting them verbatum?
If it's all balls then that eejit has only libeled himself surely?

Seachmall

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But he'll have a framework to decide upon.

The point of a legal system is to protect people and keep a semblance of order, I would say, rather then to impose moral guidelines onto people. Most people would argue that adultery is immoral, for example, but most people would not want to see it made illegal.

But our use of laws to protect people are representative of our morals, and many people vote for or against laws based on their morals (e.g. in the case of abortion people would vote to either protect the rights of the mother or to protect the rights of the unborn child depending on their own morals).

We are fortunate enough to live in a country that distinguishes between morals that need to be enforced and morals that don't (such as adultery) but the laws are still inspired by our beliefs of what is moral and what is not.

XxMCRxBabyxX

conorhal wrote: »

Well I'm no legal expert or anything, but how can you libel sombody by quoting them verbatum?
If it's all balls then that eejit has only libeled himself surely?

That's only if she's quoting what he actually said. She could have just made it up, in which case it would definitely be libel. It would be up to her to prove that he actually said what she says he did.

Grayson

Seachmall wrote: »

But our use of laws to protect people are representative of our morals, and many people vote for or against laws based on their morals (e.g. in the case of abortion people would vote to either protect the rights of the mother or to protect the rights of the unborn child depending on their own morals).

We are fortunate enough to live in a country that distinguishes between morals that need to be enforced and morals that don't (such as adultery) but the laws are still inspired by our beliefs of what is moral and what is not.

Laws are designed for safety and security (and sometimes to increase happiness/reduce unhappiness)), not morality. That is why it is illegal to kill, rob or drive drunk. But it is not illegal to commit adultery, or have gay sex.

anncoates

Guy is a total jerk but nobody in their right mind can condone what that woman did. She sounds like a vindicative nut.

What's highly ironic is that the social media that she so gladly harnessed to destroy this guy's life will probably now end up being turned on her.

Irish Guitarist

It's amazing what some people will say in public without thinking about being overheard. I was once in the park and there was a young woman about twenty feet away from me talking on her phone at the top of her voice. In the space of about thirty seconds I heard that she had had an abortion, learned her sons name, that he was being bullied in school by another boy and that she had had a fight with that boys mother.

I don't agree with posting someones photo and details on Facebook, but if you don't want people knowing your personal business don't shout about it in public.

Seachmall

Grayson wrote: »

Laws are designed for safety and security (and sometimes to increase happiness/reduce unhappiness)), not morality. That is why it is illegal to kill, rob or drive drunk.

It is illegal to murder someone because we all agree murdering people is wrong. That is a moral decision.

The same is true for endangering other peoples' lives (as in the case of drunk driving) or depriving them of property.


If we all agreed murdering people was acceptable behavior it would not be against the law (as this is a democracy).

But it is not illegal to [...] have gay sex.

Not until recently.

As a society our views on gay sex have changed. Before 1991 it was illegal because many saw it as immoral behaviour.

--Kaiser--

I don't really see much of a breach of privacy. A train is a public place

CruelCoin

Stinicker wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337983/The-husband-accused-cheater-183-000-people-Facebook-mother-claims-overheard-bragging-affairs-train.html

A guy having a private conversation on a train has his photo taken by some woman who then exposes him of being a cheater.

What a horrible horrible woman she is and I hope he sues her for a huge sum. She had no right to be eavesdropping or to publish the details of his private conversations. She really needs to be taught a lesson for this and I hope he sues for such libelous and scandalous comment to make about him.

Not sure it's libel if it's the truth....

Breach of privacy, sure, but little else.