Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't still do that do you?
I wasn't the one exposing myself if that's what you mean.
(I believe that was the joke)
Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
291–300 of 308 posts
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#292Earlier 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.
Heh, 18 years ago today I had a loud knock on my door. (The story isn't that interesting but the timing is -- to me.)
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no need for it to be a lump sum. A (much smaller) regular monthly payment to a Bitcoin address is perfectly adequate a mechanism.
>"Perfectly Adequate" All bitcoin transactions are public record, and even if you tumble you are setting yourself for getting caught by repeatedly doing the same actions. Besides, the value of the information decreases over time, meaning you're going to be making the large payments up front.
> even if you tumble you are setting yourself for getting caught by repeatedly doing the same actions.
By doing what? Making payments to an address?
> Besides, the value of the information decreases over time, meaning you're going to be making the large payments up front.
Any lumpsum can be structured as an equivalent series of regular payments. Whatever the present value of not having the data released is, it can be turned into a set of finite or indefinite payments, which last 1 year or 5 years or 10 years or however long the company feels the harm will be non-neglible. And by doing this, you still get the anti-defecting incentive of a stream rather than one-off payment.
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish the push was more of a law that let users delete their data immediately and completely from a service with the click of a button.
Any architecture that facilitates this will lose massive amounts of customer data, full stop. Backups have to be in places where live systems can't touch them, or can append only. Backups have to be offline and immutable. If you can mutate a backup based on a user request, it's not a backup. Offline backups are, however, pretty hard to steal (unless you're stealing the physical tapes). So... immediately, maybe. Compl…
Right, but eventually the older backups (still containing Joe Public's data) will go away. Depending on how long you retain backups it may be anywhere from a few days to perhaps a few months but at least it will be gone from the live systems immediately.
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've made some pretty significant assumptions, and in your childish rage, almost missed my point entirely. For starters, to say I don't give a damn about privacy, couldn't be more wrong. My point is about who to blame, for the negative impact on family members, spouses, children, etc. We shouldn't miss the mark. Blame the correct party. The "shame" that family members incur from this hack, is due to the NATURE OF T…
If you found out your friend's spouse was cheating, you would understand if people were upset if your idea of telling them was to post their pictures, address, relationship status and credit card number on every street corner in the neighborhood. Also, you do it to people who weren't cheating at all. You don't even know them. Then you start buying billboards.
Your comment entirely hinges on the following statement:
"If you found out your friend's spouse was CHEATING"
Let me rephrase it, and let's see if your statement still holds...
"If you found out your friend was a member of a gardening forum"
Given this second scenario, if I were to purchase billboards exposing their personal information, including pictures, address, and - important - their registration on the gardening forum, then I certainly would be to blame for the deplorable act of exposing personal information. I agree on this point entirely.
It is NOT my fault however, if society believes gardening is morally reprehensible, and they then incur shame as a result of having chosen to associate with gardeners.
Replace gardeners, with liars, cheaters, etc, and you'll see (hopefully), why I don't appropriate the blame for this hypothetical "shame for family members" onto the hackers. Furthermore, let's not pretend like the hacker's suddenly caused family trauma that never would have happened. That's incredibly naïve. In all likelihood, if there was infidelity, these relationships weren't exactly headed in a good direction to begin with, and their exposure as liars, and cheaters, would happen for a good lot of them anyways! And just to underscore my point, if they were gardeners, there would be no shame in it all.
So for maybe the 3rd time now, just so that I am completely clear - NO, exposing personal information is NOT cool, and I do NOT think it's right to do. However, the fall out being incurred by family members, has more to due with the nature of the exposure, than the exposure itself. I really genuinely struggle to see why this point is so difficult for some.
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#296This seems awfully meta - as the AM hack revealed 30m people to have lost any real privacy in the digital age, the person seemingly / likely / possibly responsible is hunted down and much of his life laid out like a private investigators report through his digital trail. It's curious - we are all being affected by the new digital pollution
There isn't any contradiction, if you were implying there was. All of the information compiled in this article was published to the public. Any private information that has been revealed about this individual is likely misdirection or irrelevant.
No, no contradiction just ... We are all in the gutter, covered in the same mud.
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Perfectly Adequate" All bitcoin transactions are public record, and even if you tumble you are setting yourself for getting caught by repeatedly doing the same actions. Besides, the value of the information decreases over time, meaning you're going to be making the large payments up front.
> even if you tumble you are setting yourself for getting caught by repeatedly doing the same actions. By doing what? Making payments to an address? > Besides, the value of the information decreases over time, meaning you're going to be making the large payments up front. Any lumpsum can be structured as an equivalent series of regular payments. Whatever the present value of not having the data released is, it can be…
You know how the blockchain works, right?
Those transactions become permanently public, and can be used against you in court if at any time in the infinite future you are tied to that address, or tied to any addresses pulling bitcoins out of that account (which are also publicly recorded actions). Compared to cash, which is not a matter of public record, bitcoin is not a "Perfectly Adequate" solution.
Without contracts or signals, you can't make monthly payments on a depreciating asset/service because it becomes an auction. The hackers are rationally incentivized to maximize their returns, and that includes selling the data to the highest bidder before the price depreciates. That means that Ashley Madison would need to beat the highest bidder each month, without knowing if the other bidders are even real.
Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#298Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#299Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?
#300Earlier 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."
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…
It's not "wishful thinking". It's a tool/lie by the ruling class to control the mass. "Marriage" has always been a tool to ensure hierarchical stability: nobles married nobles because that helped to maintain their family wealth, which is not necessarily how the society works today, and so-called "romantic love" was a new notion invented only after renaissance(it's also not the truth on how humans think/behave anyways). Of course technical advances also play a big part in it. In ancient times there were practical troubles for sleeping around because of STD and impregnation. Female liberation and sexual freedom largely came with advances in contraception devices. Nowadays with everybody gaining more independence and power such archaical social institutions are bound to be obsolete. It's just that social changes mostly come slower than technical/economical basis for them.