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

151–160 of 308 posts

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#151

Post by kbenson »

Zigurd wrote: post #139
kbenson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you and I have different ideas of what absolute means. Encryption protects infromation as long as A) the computation power, time and desire available to break your encryption does not exceed the level you encrypted, B) the underlying math principles on which the encryption was based do not see a change in some manner reducing the effectiveness of the algorithm for this task, or C) The implementation of the en…

While one could be wrong about the basics of physics and math, you can encrypt things, cheaply and quickly, that would take a computer made of all the matter and all the energy in the universe to break in more time than the universe has existed. You have to take some care. But an NSA magic code breaking machine is in the same category as flying saucers at Area 51. Exceedingly unlikely. That's about as good a guarante…

There's a very specific reason I included B and C in my listed cases. I agree in many or most cases it could be said that it's unlikely certain encryption methods would be bypassed, but to me that only gives you a fairly good prospect of being secure, not an absolute certainty. That may or may not affect your original argument, I'm not sure.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#152

Post by oldmanjay »

humanrebar wrote: post #68
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your philosophy involves your opinions mattering in people's private concerns, no, it's not valid.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#154

Post by kbenson »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #144
kbenson wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You won't need CCTV. Many already carry around always-connected surveillance devices. Those devices will only grow in number and their capabilities increase.

Yes, but I was using CCTV to illustrate and conceptually link an already existing privacy debate that's been going on for quite a while.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#155

Post by jsprogrammer »

jchrisa wrote: post #121
humanrebar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.

Married people's thoughts on monogamy are irrelevant.

The argument was that the breach of contract is no one else's business except for the two parties to that contract. This was rebutted by someone claiming that they hold value in knowledge about another's breach of a contract.

What I don't understand is the reasoning that says a breach of contract is only meaningful to the parties of the contract. If someone is influenced by knowledge that someone breached another contract, then that knowledge is meaningful outside the confines of the contract.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#157

Post by oldmanjay »

nostrebored wrote: post #120
balabaster wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It exposes what is already human nature. Okay, it was a potential enabler... you have a fair point. But it having a large male populous turns out to be a popular gay hub. The people on this site were going to cheat anyway. I don't disagree with it being run by sleazy people with sleazy business practices. From everything I've read, I'd concur with this statement. An epidemic of cheating over the internet is no more a…

I find the prospect of people making promises to people that we can assume that they love and being unable to keep those promises to be terrifying. If I believed that we weren't able to control our behavior and we were overrun with animalistic desire, I would kill myself. The same ideology is used to justify violence, rape, etc., and if I did not believe that these problems could be addressed or improved upon, I pers…

Do you feel like your hyperbolic response to something that isn't actually even your concern to be a convincing argument of some sort? Without trying to be too callous, your suicide-in-potentia is dust in the wind compared to the sort of misery that would be produced by trying to live according to the standard you thankfully have no right to set.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#159

Post by ryandrake »

pascalmemories wrote: post #53
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....

Unfortunately, that's not how the "politically & economically powerful demographic in the world" works. What you will see is lots of new laws to crack down on hackers, encryption and any type of computing not specifically 'approved' by some sort of security overlord department. Look at what the UK is proposing (way before AM became news) and you'll have a rough starting point. The laws will be the exact opposite of i…

And, the laws that we really need, namely harsh criminal penalties for companies negligently handling people's private data, will be absent.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#160

Post by scythe »

eli wrote: post #63
scythe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I didn't (and wouldn't) do anything. I can very well say you deserve to fall without believing that I deserve to push you.
Post reply on HN