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

Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 308 posts

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#61

Post by [deleted] »

watty wrote: post #43
lawl wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason I don't go around and post an article how "watty" did $x. It doesn't matter if this is a pseudonym and what kind of avatar you use. If watty might be implicated in something illegal I should go talk to the police and not publicly witch hunt your handle, no?

I still don't see the problem. If this handle was directly connected with $x I would fully expect people to be discussing my handle in blogs/forums. Going to the cops is fine and dandy too of course. Krebs even clarifies "If Zu wasn’t involved in the hack, he almost certainly knows who was.".

[deleted]

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#63

Post by eli »

scythe wrote: post #55
sbarre wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. Who are you, or anyone else, to question or evaluate "commitment" in a relationship that you have no part of, and know nothing about? Or to force someone's personal private life out in the open where it will be used to judge them without context? Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be.

>Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. [...] Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be. The irony thickens. Let me rephrase you: "Who are you, or anyone else, to evaluate 'abuse' in a relationship..." -- the answer is "anyone who knows how to count". While there are exceptions to every rule, the majority of cases fall into rather ordinary examples. Not everyone is special. Of course, indiscriminate…

Nobody asked you to intervene in their marriage, investigate their spouse, or enforce any laws -- adultery isn't even a crime in many places. You do not get to impose your morals on others. A stranger cheating on another stranger has nothing to do with you.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#64

Post by vezzy-fnord »

nostrebored wrote: post #58
ori_b wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about people not sticking their noses into other people's relationships? We used to have the state jail, or even torture, adulterers. Society eventually agreed that it's not their job to do that. Let's hold off on forming lynch mobs.

Where are the lynch mobs? For the vast majority of these people, they're being called assholes because they were being assholes. I'm okay with that. The same "not sticking our noses into other people's relationships" was the root of the Family Values crowd in the 80's saying that domestic violence is a family issue, incest is a family issue, etc. Where do you draw the line at sticking your nose into other people's re…

They're not just being called assholes, they're having all personal and financial details dumped in the process. There's a difference.

We've generally determined that sexual practices, as long as they're consensual and do not involve harm to anyone outside the participants themselves, should not be subject to persecution. This includes incest, as much as it may disgust you. A lot of people are disgusted by coprophagia, that doesn't mean we should publicly shame people for having sexual tastes that aren't to our fancy. It is as arbitrary as shaming people for musical preferences.

Domestic violence is a wholly separate problem altogether. There's nothing that doxing will do to solve it.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#65

Post by x0x0 »

mahyarm wrote: post #56
x0x0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find weirdest about the whole thing is the data wasn't sold back to Ashley Madison. The hacker(s) could have leaked 10 or 20 juicy names then probably cleared $10 million dollars or better. It would have been a bargain to Ashley Madison at that price.

So, how the hell would you receive your criminal payment of $10mm? How would your life be afterwards? You don't think the FBI or whoever else will be spending $2mm to catch you, and a big money payment like that will be the way to track you?

in order:

how to get the money: bitcoin, move to russia and use wire transfers, launder it through lawyers, etc

life afterwards: one hell of a lot richer

fbi: part of the agreement is ashley doesn't go to the fbi, again, with the full data release hanging over their heads. And no, I don't think the fbi would be particularly motivated. They have plenty on their plates. Because, crucially, Ashley Madison wants this to go away (hence the hush money), so they're unmotivated to pursue legal challenges because it quite likely results in the full data release.

Particularly with the potential of disrupting the ipo, it seems straightforward to cut a deal.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#66

Post by jjtheblunt »

smtddr wrote: post #2

I don't condone this hack, but morals/ethics aside for a moment: The one positive thing this hack has done is really give serious ammo to the battle for online privacy, because the demographic hit by this hack is the most politically & economically powerful demographic in the world....

How do you figure? Seems that the demographic hit is just a bunch of people with dysfunctional people skills.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#67

Post by blowski »

x5n1 wrote: post #40
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the opposite. The AM hack hasn't helped at all, since enough people view it as a just retribution due to it being about a pet moral value that is held dear, namely marital fidelity. And to others, it's all a big joke. The cheating cheaters (who likely never got the opportunity to cheat) have been named and shamed, and because of those asserting that it's acceptable to do this if it strokes their personal mo…

The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."

The opposite of Gyges's ring. If every fact of everybody's lives, everything you ever thought was public - would you behave more ethically? It's sort of like a panopticon where everybody guards everybody else.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#68

Post by humanrebar »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #49
nostrebored wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well if you engage in a promise with someone that you're going to be in a monogamous relationship -- let's be real, that's what marriage is for the vast majority -- you're a prick if you attempt to break that commitment, and again, that's what being on AM is about. Pretending otherwise is delusional, and having morals isn't a bad thing. Is doxxing always unethical?

Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to undergo court procedure if they so desire. Being on AM wouldn't solely have been about breaking commitment. From what I recall, it became an inadvertent hub for gay dating due to its extraordinary gender/sex imbalance. AM's entire business practice was about…

> Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers.

That's one way to look at things. I happen to have a different philosophy about marriage, that it actually does affect other people, and since you're so understanding, I'm sure you'll grant that my philosophy is equally valid.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#69

Post by btilly »

scythe wrote: post #55
sbarre wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. Who are you, or anyone else, to question or evaluate "commitment" in a relationship that you have no part of, and know nothing about? Or to force someone's personal private life out in the open where it will be used to judge them without context? Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be.

>Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. [...] Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be. The irony thickens. Let me rephrase you: "Who are you, or anyone else, to evaluate 'abuse' in a relationship..." -- the answer is "anyone who knows how to count". While there are exceptions to every rule, the majority of cases fall into rather ordinary examples. Not everyone is special. Of course, indiscriminate…

Let me rephrase you: "Who are you, or anyone else, to evaluate 'abuse' in a relationship..." -- the answer is "anyone who knows how to count". While there are exceptions to every rule, the majority of cases fall into rather ordinary examples. Not everyone is special.

I'm guessing that you haven't talked about this with anyone who is into BDSM. Just because you witness something that you think is violent abuse doesn't mean that you're right.

Conversely I've seen perfectly pleasant looking couple who engage in constant verbal abuse disguised as pleasant commentary. Most people won't recognize it for what it is. Go read http://www.amazon.com/The-Gentle-Art-Verbal-Self-Defense/dp/... and you may do better than most people.

Be very, very careful about judging what happens in other people's relationships. It may be bad. Or you may not know. For real.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#70

Post by nostrebored »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #49
nostrebored wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well if you engage in a promise with someone that you're going to be in a monogamous relationship -- let's be real, that's what marriage is for the vast majority -- you're a prick if you attempt to break that commitment, and again, that's what being on AM is about. Pretending otherwise is delusional, and having morals isn't a bad thing. Is doxxing always unethical?

Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to undergo court procedure if they so desire. Being on AM wouldn't solely have been about breaking commitment. From what I recall, it became an inadvertent hub for gay dating due to its extraordinary gender/sex imbalance. AM's entire business practice was about…

Having morals also means speaking out about things when it is your concern. 37 Million (of course potentially non-unique) accounts on a website advertised with the express intent of cheating on your spouse with nobody knowing is fucked up. It's a sleazy website run by sleazy people with sleazy business practices, used by people who are trying to do something which their spouse VERY LIKELY disagrees with.

Of course there are portions of the AM leak which are bad, like the gay men in Saudi Arabia, but pretending that this is the norm and not the exception is feeding a delusion. Just because a small portion of the website does not follow the same perogative does not mean that we should derail the discussion from the main issue.

An epidemic of cheating over the internet is a concern for people who intend to get married. Estabilshing strong social taboos here is not some awful thing.

Post reply on HN