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

181–190 of 308 posts

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#181

Post by bharath28 »

unabst wrote: post #162
x5n1 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

This sounds more like 2020. By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves. 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 neighbor…

Interesting thought: "By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves."

By gotten over, did you mean we'll have given in to the fact that there will be an observer (albeit a benevolent one?) or that we'll have stopped caring about the intent of the observer?

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#183

Post by Tloewald »

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."

Once privacy disappears we can actually base our morality on data rather than wishful thinking. It's the transition period (i.e. now) where we have pretty arbitrary morals largely based on ancient religious texts, etc. and we're finally getting actual data on what people actually do that is the nasty part.

E.g. we know that rich people have always obtained abortions, used illegal drugs, and had promiscuous sex, but public morality and social mores were constructed entirely on the fiction that this was the exception and not the rule.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#184

Post by dopamean »

maaku wrote: post #117
dopamean wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cDc == cult of the dead cow? I haven't seen them referenced in ages. Probably since my own arrest actually.

You don't leave that one hanging. What's the story? Care to share?

It's really not that interesting. I was 15 and played around with some computers that belongs to the US Navy. Then one day at 6 am I heard a loud knock on the front door.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#185

Post by icebraining »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #175
icebraining wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be.

Well, I reviewed the argument that I was referring to and it wasn't what you are claiming. Here's the text: >Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. The argument claimed that the breach was "of absolutely no relevance". Yes, the word "meaningful" wasn't used, but I dare you to provide a definition of the word "meaningful". >The argument is…

I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person.

I can see where one might read it differently, though, but I confess I fail to see the point in discussing from that POV.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#186

Post by humanrebar »

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.

I'm aware of those people. I'll formally apologize in a twitter post if a significant portion of the AM clients were in open marriages.

> They think honesty is more important.

Yeah, that's a false dichotomy. And are monogamous marriages dishonest? That's oddly judgmental for an appeal for open-mindedness. Or you meant something else by "honesty", like realistic?. I guess that's slightly less judgy.

A lot of these philosophical arguments get bogged down in boring bickering about word definitions. Marriage, traditionally, has implied "monogamous". At least "adultery" and "cheating" do.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#187

Post by atmosx »

laxatives wrote: post #171
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.

The most surprising part of that story to me is that AC/DC is Australian. I had no idea. I always assumed they were Brits.

I was 100% sure they were Brits with atrong connection to the working class of the UK, etc.

Other than that, another idiot who is actively trying to get some attention, by doing illegal things online, nothing new, nothing special.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#188

Post by bdempsey »

dopamean wrote: post #184
maaku wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't leave that one hanging. What's the story? Care to share?

It's really not that interesting. I was 15 and played around with some computers that belongs to the US Navy. Then one day at 6 am I heard a loud knock on the front door.

Would .. you .. like .. to .. play .. a .. game?

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#189

Post by mahyarm »

x0x0 wrote: post #65
mahyarm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, on the flip side, how would AM hide a $10mm payment to a random shady group from investors and future IPO filings? A new office in russia for 'consulting services'!?

And in these kinds of hostage negotiations, you give in to demands while simultaneously try to capture the criminals.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#190

Post by soylentcola »

jasonlotito wrote: post #164
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 naming and shaming is disgusting. There are people who are cheering on the hackers. They completely disregard the ramifications of this for the innocents involved (the family members and loved ones of the person who signed up) who now have to deal with all this publicly. 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…

Right. It strikes me sort of like "hey! this person over here is/has acted like an asshole!" After a point, what do you gain by publicly pointing out the shortcomings of others?

I'd like to think that at some point we'd just get over the whole voyeuristic, hypocritical obsession with finding new witches to burn but I'm starting to just accept that it's part of human nature.

Post reply on HN