Live data from Hacker News

Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

krebsonsecurity.com

221–230 of 308 posts

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing this and it makes me realize I wasn't as cool as I thought I was in the 90s :P The FBI visited once, my dad freaked out and told me before he answered the door. Turns out someone was exposing themselves to kids on Halloween.

You don't still do that do you?

I wasn't the one exposing myself if that's what you mean.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#222
> But there may something else going on here. It is possible that Zu’s approach to tweeting — that is, responding to or addressing other Twitter users without invoking the intended recipient’s Twitter handle — is something of a security precaution. After all, he had to know and even expect that security researchers would try to reconstruct his conversations after the fact. But this is far more difficult to do when the Twitter user in question never actually participates in threaded conversations. People who engage in this way of tweeting also do not readily reveal the Twitter identities of the people with whom they chat most.

I love how Krebs has reframed "subtweeting" as some sort of new security practice as opposed to an annoying passive-aggressive thing everyone does from time to time :-D

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#223

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…

You're equating an injury to the an imaginary-symbolic construct (the exclusively monogamous relationship) with an injury to an actual person's body that occurs in the case of violence or rape. Contracts are valuable, but they're not people.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's art imitating life. Old school warez, demoscene and hacker groups have always had a very "campy" countercultural aesthetic to them. Hackers the film doesn't hold a candle to the real-life cDc. These types of groups are a dying breed, though.

There is some academic writing on the subject I can't find at the moment. Basically the idea that Hackers are the modern day tricksters of mythology. Sneaky, morally ambiguous, possessing mysterious powers over our surroundings. It's important to be over the top and silly with your hacks.

That sounds like Snowcrash :)

I'd be interested in reading whatever academic writing that was, if you find it.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's art imitating life. Old school warez, demoscene and hacker groups have always had a very "campy" countercultural aesthetic to them. Hackers the film doesn't hold a candle to the real-life cDc. These types of groups are a dying breed, though.

There is some academic writing on the subject I can't find at the moment. Basically the idea that Hackers are the modern day tricksters of mythology. Sneaky, morally ambiguous, possessing mysterious powers over our surroundings. It's important to be over the top and silly with your hacks.

The ~'90s computer underground hacker, which some people like to call cracker, was a more traditional youth subculture than the coder hacker. With groups, zines, handles etc. similar to say music, graffiti or action sports.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I'm an atheist and have an expansive view of morality, but I still value my privacy, not least because it provides me with a small asymmetrical information advantage against institutions with which I would otherwise be unable to compete. I don't think it's the case that if we were all to wake up naked (figuratively speaking) that hypocrisy would disappear and there would be a major adjustment in our social technology…

Some people are really dumb. But we are also in a transition period. People in general don't change hard earned prejudices; they die and are replaced by people with new prejudices.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#227

> 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.

It's art imitating life. Old school warez, demoscene and hacker groups have always had a very "campy" countercultural aesthetic to them. Hackers the film doesn't hold a candle to the real-life cDc. These types of groups are a dying breed, though.

I dunno, man - without Fisher Stevens riding a skateboard through a giant server room, can anything really be as campy as Hackers?

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#228

My reaction is still mostly schadenfreude. If/when these people are caught, they should face the consequences of their actions but I'm not going to wrap paranoia over my own peccadillos in fake outrage over internet privacy. I'm opposed to people doing unauthorized things with other people's property on general principles. I'm far more concerned with the IRS's data breach because every victim was legally compelled to…

Most of them yes. Lots of innocent people are caught up in this too. For example, many women joined the site to try and find out if their husbands were having an affair. Other people had third parties use their pictures and emails used to sign up.

http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/08/heres-what-ashley-madison-me...

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#229

> 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 had actually grown up assuming they were American. Kind of funny.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#230
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…

Yes, but then someone creates a network for cheater spouses that gets in the news cycle because it's "impossible to hack due to futuristic maths" (ie. peer-to-peer). And now suddenly something decentralized and provably private seems very interesting and practical to those who were previously interested in legislative solutions. But I'm an optimist :)
Post reply on HN