Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 252 posts

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#101

Post by [deleted] »

hyperpape wrote: post #91
bradleyankrom wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the sample Troy showed may not be representative of the whole, but I think there are a lot of users, outside of tech, that aren't aware of the breach. There is a comment somewhere -- maybe it's from the article, I can't remember -- expressing surprise that the AM home page doesn't acknowledge the breach at all. I would imagine that they are still receiving signups from folks who aren't following this story.

They are still receiving signups: https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/63482830938637107...

[deleted]

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#102

Post by merpnderp »

bnycum wrote: post #80
njharman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lots of false information is (very) worse in many cases. People don't know it's false and will assume it is true and about you. So, for instance if this "False info Service" created an account (probably several) on AM, you'd probably be unhappy now. Or posts on some nasty 4Chan that prospective employers find. Or puts up false past address that happened to be the real address of sex offender and now your name…

To further go with this, I have a simple email I scored when gmail first opened. Basically it's a single name with no extra characters. Anyways tons of people sign up for things under that email, and that email is of course in the Ashley Madison leak. It's also part of a ton of other leaks but it's never me. Someone even has a facebook account under it that they won't let me delete. People have used it for AT&T, Veri…

I thought facebook sent a confirmation email to the address. How are people getting around that requirement?

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#103

Post by cousin_it »

roymurdock wrote: post #83
cousin_it wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like you're pretty bitter about something or other. I think you should make more friends That's a pretty unkind thing to say to a stranger on the internet. I lose a bit of faith in humanity every time I see such things.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm pushing OP to reflect on why he holds some of the viewpoints that he does. I'm also not trying to imply that OP does not have enough friends. Just that he might get a broader picture of women in general if he had more female friends. I read your edited comment about how that made you sad. A lot of things on HN make me sad - there are many unnecessarily mean, rude, snarky comments posted…

Fair enough. Sorry if my own comment was unnecessarily harsh.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#104

Post by netcan »

rue wrote: post #97
fab13n wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it as an electrical engineering metaphor, where you can string devices in parallel, or in serial one after the other, but where with a few adaptations both can lead to the same practical result. Besides, my whole point is that this behavior constitutes a variant of polygamy, not a variant of monogamy, so I stand by that term. That there's a "serial monogamy" idiom describing it (I just discovered it thanks to…

I don’t know, I think it’s less useful to read ‘lifelong’ into the word monogamy. It simply describes the number of simultaneous relationships—whether it lasts for a week or forever is another dimension.

I think you're splitting hairs a little, rue.

In fairness, fab was splitting hairs with me. What I meant is a softening of the monogamy using the currently normal relationship model as the definition. What he meant is that the definition of normal monogamy has changed anyway over the past few generations. Courtship became relationships, which really became marriage-like partnership.

He's right. What we call monogamy would not have held with our great grandparents. They would have objected to the serial partnerships much more than the infidelity which at least we have the decency to try and keep secret.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#105

Post by smtddr »

fab13n wrote: post #71
rue wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

‘Serial polygamy’ means a sequence of multiple simultaneous relationships. You mean serial monogamy.

I meant it as an electrical engineering metaphor, where you can string devices in parallel, or in serial one after the other, but where with a few adaptations both can lead to the same practical result. Besides, my whole point is that this behavior constitutes a variant of polygamy, not a variant of monogamy, so I stand by that term. That there's a "serial monogamy" idiom describing it (I just discovered it thanks to…

I thought of it as how a CPU appears to be running several programs at the same time in a home PC, but we know the OS is actually switching between all the processes at an extremely high rate. :)

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#106

Post by balabaster »

ryaniscool wrote: post #8
formichunter wrote: post #2

In northern virginia, fairfaxunderground website, was nice enough to parse only information pertinent to this area. Now, everybody and their friends have searched through it looking for people they know. My wife actually found a good friend's dad listed twice...and he's still married. So, now all those facebook connection have this awkward knowledge and no one will tell the friend.

Is it "nice" to encourage violating other people's privacy? Spouses are the real victims in these situations. Part of the pain of infidelity is the humiliation. Airing a whole community's dirty laundry just makes it worse for the victims.

Can you clarify your meaning of community in this context? You mean the AM community or the "victim's" community? Also, who are you referencing as the victim, the person who had their data leaked or those affected by the fallout?

In the context of those affected by the fallout, if enough are affected, then one could claim the opposite: That it makes it easier knowing that so many were affected that nobody is passing any judgment on their specific incident because everyone is in the same boat - thus the humiliation is actually less.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#108

Post by woody223 »

VLM wrote: post #85
JupiterMoon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EULAs are never legally binding Violation will certainly give the social media cite grounds and desire to delete the false profiles though.

Aren't their financial valuations based on account numbers and made up metrics like that? So deleting this fraudulent account will cause a measurable, definable, actionable, $0.0001 decrease in shareholder value, ignoring it will have no effect on shareholder value, what is my fiduciary responsibility here?

You are not a fiduciary in this context so would not have fiduciary responsibility to the owners (public or private). Essentially your relationship is with the company as a user/buyer of their product or services and is governed by user agreement - which may be a blanket EULA and may or may not be enforceable.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#109

Post by balabaster »

adriand wrote: post #68

I'm not religious, but I think the appropriate quote here is: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

I think it was the same person claimed to state: Do not judge lest thee be judged thyself.

Also: You must love your neighbour as yourself...

So basically... you're gonna fuck up at some point, so don't be too hard on others when they fuck up; because when you do it, you're gonna need some support and then where will you be?

Post reply on HN