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

91–100 of 308 posts

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#91

Post by kbenson »

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."

I don't think so, I think it's just a matter of us learning where our prior ideas of privacy and what should and can be expected are meeting with the new reality. We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1].

Additionally, I increasingly think our interpretation of privacy has been too colored by the recent past (recent in this case being the last couple hundred years). Public privacy is largely a byproduct of increasing urbanization and the anonymity that large crowds provided. In rural areas where someone was around to witness your actions, anyone and everyone might know of it in short order.

I think we will eventually settle on new norms of privacy, where some laws are strengthened, and some are weakened, people are aware of what steps they need to take to be reasonably private in the different areas of their life, and we'll settle into a more normal level of government privacy breaches (they have always existed) than the occurrences we are seeing now (which I believe it a result of our laws and expectations no longer adequately mapping to reality).

1: For example, if a government can legally place a person at a location to observe, I believe any actions to prevent their capability to automate this process (CCTV) will likely fail in outcome, if not legislation.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#92

Post by nostrebored »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #64
nostrebored wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coprophagi…

The incest I was talking about was wrt the Family Values discussions in the 80's in which there was some discussion of molestation being a family issue that should not be handled by the courts. Admittedly this was a fringe view, but still discussed.

I agree that financial data being dumped is over the top.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#93

Post by walshemj »

chrischen wrote: post #48
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.

Privacy isn't a natural right, just like lying to someone via marriage isn't universally considered unethical. Your right to privacy isn't naturally guaranteed, and is only granted by some mutually agreed upon rules in the form of privacy laws. But if I know some fact about you, what gives you any right to say I can't reveal that information? Wouldn't you be limiting my speech? If you argue that lying in marriage is…

A lot of courts think it is

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#94

Post by nostrebored »

peejaybee wrote: post #79
nostrebored wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 relationships? How about we put the line somewhere between physical force and broken promises? Just an idea.

I'm glad you can so easily weigh the damage of a punch vs. years of deceit. My impact calculus is a bit different.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#95

Post by solipsism »

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 means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern

That's fundamental to your moral framework. It may even be fundamental to the moral norms in US or Western culture. But it's not fundamental to everybody's. It's by no means objective. That's why we have objective laws to go by.

Talking about morals means realizing everyone has different morals. Of what use is it to argue whether cheating or hacking or meddling in the business of others or vigilante justice is or isn't moral in general?

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#96

Post by vezzy-fnord »

nostrebored wrote: post #87
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raw numbers aren't of much use here. You need to also gauge intent and opportunity, which is much harder, and at least in the case of opportunity, there was virtually none. You can't do that, so just stay the hell out. "An epidemic of cheating over the internet". My God, do you think adultery was invented recently? This is a classic fallacy of blaming the mere institutions as opposed to the root cause.

The intent when you register on a website designed for cheating on your spouse seems pretty clear to me. If you found your spouse registering for AM would you assume that it was just to see if they had a sleek UI? Hook-up culture has always existed as well, but let's not pretend that Tinder hasn't changed the pace/availability of hooking up. In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the internet hasn…

In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the internet hasn't facilitated people comitting adultery.

In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the Internet hasn't facilitated people engaging in terrorist activity and drug trade. When do we build the firewall, captain?

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#97

Post by ori_b »

nostrebored wrote: post #90
ori_b wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if a ton of these people are non-monogamous, then perhaps we as a society should have a discussion about how our values are shifting and what new families look like Why should we have that discussion? If my spouse was cheating, I'd want to have that discussion in private , without gawkers, and without social pressure from the uninvolved.

If you had the option of knowing that your spouse was cheating via dox, or not knowing at all which would you choose? I would still contend that you do get to have the discussions surrounding all of this in private, if you choose, or in public amidst people who are going through the same thing that you are through discussions like these, the legal system, etc. What about the scores of people to whom cheating is a dea…

> If you had the option of knowing that your spouse was cheating via dox, or not knowing at all which would you choose?

Personally? Easy choice, I'd pick not knowing. Others might pick differently.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#99

Post by eli »

nostrebored wrote: post #81
eli wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clearly from the response we're seeing from society outside of this tech bubble where your privacy must be protected at all times otherwise doom ensues, people want to know when their spouse is cheating on them. You make an assumption that quite frankly ignores reality in favor of a weird moral relativism where any sort of judgment is bad. Odds are that people don't want their spouse cheating on them. Someone stealin…

Hacking into a dating website is not analogous to merely observing someone stealing. If you set up cameras pointed into my bedroom, I'd have a big problem with that even if it did catch a burglar.

The fact that some people approve of vigilante justice and disrupting the personal lives of people they don't like doesn't mean it's a good idea. There are many obvious historical examples of terrible harm that sort of thinking has caused. If you think adultery is a crime that requires help from people not involved in the marriage, I suggest you campaign to make it illegal in all states and ask for police resources to be dedicated to it. If you see someone stealing, you should call the police.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#100

Post by inspectahdeck »

philangist wrote: post #14

> They said Avid Life employees first learned about the breach on July 12 (seven days before my initial story) when they came into work, turned on their computers and saw a threatening message from the Impact Team accompanied by the anthem “Thunderstruck” by Australian rock band AC/DC playing in the background. This reads like a scene straight out of Hackers or some other campy tech movie. Life imitates art.

I heard a similar story from a Sony employee about the Sony hack. Was able to find it mentioned in a Vanity Fair article:

>...this morning, as she began her day, she discovered that a bizarre specter had hijacked her computer. The screen glowed with a blood-red skeleton baring its fangs, and the words “Hacked By #GOP.”

[0] http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/02/sony-hacking-set...

Post reply on HN