161–170 of 308 posts
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....
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."
Who wants to know? This is a question easily overlooked, but is crucial to observation (aka surveillance). Observation is done by an observer and done with intent. Without intent, we stop looking.
I for one don't want to know or care for petty details about my neighbors. I want safety without the chore of maintaining knowledge. This might be too much to ask by 2020, but by 3000 we should have it figured out (granted we'll still here).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Again, you have no way of gauging intent. An example the poster above gave is a really great one. A couple having a consensual S/M relationship that involves controlled pain, possibly leaving visible marks. Your method would be to immediately rat them out to the authorities. Congratulations, you just ruined a happy couple's relationship because you can't see past your own thin worldview, and never bothered to think b…
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....
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…
Imagine any couple that went through a rough patch and reconciled. They've already moved past this, and now they have to live with the knowledge that this information is out there to bring it public.
Children being mocked at school because their mother or father was on the site.
Imagine anything you dealt with in private that you didn't want to share with others, and not imagine having the choice of dealing with that in private removed from you.
It's horrible.
So Krebs has no conclusive proof for anything? As he himself admits: > It is possible that Zu is instead a white hat security researcher or confidential informant Jeez, how about talking to the police and let them do their job, or at the very least censor the name. This is just a witch hunt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 inf…
(1) The hackers dislike the idea of adultery and wanted to harm the site & punish its users;
(2) The hackers wanted to blackmail the site and its users by threatening to expose them if they did not pay hush money or perform other services (e.g. reveal secrets).
It seems that motive (1) has some acceptance (people are cheering the hackers), but I think (2) seems more plausible. These guys aren't heroes: they found a vulnerable target and went after it.
I can imagine two separate motives for this hack: (1) The hackers dislike the idea of adultery and wanted to harm the site & punish its users; (2) The hackers wanted to blackmail the site and its users by threatening to expose them if they did not pay hush money or perform other services (e.g. reveal secrets). It seems that motive (1) has some acceptance (people are cheering the hackers), but I think (2) seems more p…
I can imagine two separate motives for this hack: (1) The hackers dislike the idea of adultery and wanted to harm the site & punish its users; (2) The hackers wanted to blackmail the site and its users by threatening to expose them if they did not pay hush money or perform other services (e.g. reveal secrets). It seems that motive (1) has some acceptance (people are cheering the hackers), but I think (2) seems more p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think the 1986 law that allows any entity in the government can read anyone's email is bigger ammo It's the ultimate hack, because it's in plain sight and somehow no-one cares. But run your own private email server in your home to prevent warrantless abuse and everyone loses their damn minds.
Why can't both be bad and unacceptable? Playing the shades of grey game is a great wait to force dissent in an area that should incite cooperation.
One is a lazy, immoral company started on a whim that took off and "surprise" they ran their business in a lazy immoral way.
The other is government sanctioned, taxpayer funded, broadly used abuse of police powers without oversight, based on a law that is 30 years old.