Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 374 posts

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#231

Post by Lawtonfogle »

anotherangrydev wrote: post #158
jessriedel wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All parties involved can be at fault. And lots of people will think that privacy, while very important, is not quite at the same level as marital fidelity. It's like hearing that a vicious murderous mob boss had his leg shot off. Yes, the person who took his leg ought to be sent to jail, but we might not have much sympathy for the mob boss since his terrible actions led directly to those consequences.

Typical. Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)

>Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!)

What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#233

Post by richmarr »

StavrosK wrote: post #220
richmarr wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure Asbostos doesn't want to... Sure, I'll concede an assumption there. I am also not convinced that vigilantism is always wrong 'Wrong' is subjective so that statement is a truism. For a given act of vigilantism there will be a proportion who condone it and a proportion who don't. Who decides? That's what the law is for. It's so we can't all just wander about dispensing 'justice' without accountability. Wha…

> 'Wrong' is subjective so that statement is a truism Morality is subjective, so dismissing the statement as a truism means that we can't talk about morality at all. > For a given act of vigilantism there will be a proportion who condone it and a proportion who don't. Who decides? Same goes for a given law. > What happens if someone commits suicide because of this hack? "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong"…

  ... dismissing the statement as a truism means that 
  we can't talk about morality at all.
I just think we need to be more careful with words, as you point out.

  Same goes for a given law.
Yet with laws there is an opportunity for debate and reform, as well as some degree accountability. You can be reasonably confident that at least a strong minority think any given law is reasonable. For vigilante actions that support will be a lot smaller and the debate, accountability and opportuity for reform drop to zero.

  "I'm not convinced vigilantism is always wrong" is not 
  the same as "I condone this hack".
Sure. Apologies if it sounded like I was accusing you of that. Wasn't my intention. I just wanted to highlight the lack of accountability.

  My definition of vigilantism includes any action in response 
  to an injustice that isn't performed by the executive branch 
  of government.
Sure, well in that case there are plenty of actions that are reasonable, such as undertaking a consumer boycots, or passing a gun control law in response to a school massacre. I was using the regular definition, hence the misunderstanding.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#234

Post by tptacek »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #229
jdalgetty wrote: post #141

It get's me that so many people are basically saying it serves these people right for using the service. I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. Secondly, I'd wager that many of the users sign up to use Ashley Madison for the thrill of the idea and probably aren't actually cheaters themselves or hooki…

>I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. What about those Tor sites that were recently busted. Yes, the content was far worse, but if we argue that usage of a site can be bad enough to warrant a loss in deserving your privacy protected, the difference between the two becomes only a difference in deter…

False equivalence. Adultery is not a crime. Trafficking in child pornography is. Nobody has a right to private criminality.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#237

Post by Lawtonfogle »

netcan wrote: post #194
aetherson wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people who use the site may be "innocent" (because they didn't actually do anything, or because they're in an open marriage or whatever). And even people who are to one degree or other "guilty" are not as a class to be declared guilty and given all the same punishment. That said, while I can't necessarily judge any given user of the site, I'm pretty confident that the people running the site are contributing…

Liberalism is an idea that has a lot of weight on this site. For some, it's libertarian kind of liberalism where people should be left to make their won economic decisions. For others its the social liberalism kind where people should be allowed to decide for themselves what is a valid marriage, or what drugs they will or won't put in their bodies. Most flavors of liberalism have at their heart the idea that "The Sta…

Obviously on this site there are some harmful cases not involving open marriages. And while cheating may not be illegal, I'm pretty sure that many people would rather they be physically assaulted to a degree enough for the law to be involved than to be cheated on in a relationship they value.

So then the question becomes, how much wrong/harm can a site promote before it is shut down?

What about an anti-vaxxer site that is leading parents to make choices that will kill some number of children?

What about a website hosting all the leaked data from this hack?

What about a site promoting self harm directed towards children who are most vulnerable to such promotions?

What about recent Tor sites that were taken down?

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#238

Post by rhino369 »

forgottenpass wrote: post #97
cheald wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our leaders, cheating on one's spouse is problematic (and plays well in the media) because it is an extremely clear-cut example of being willing to violate one's most sacred vows for one's personal pleasure or convenience - not a quality that engenders much confidence in said leader's ability to honor the vows they made to serve the interests of their country and her citizens. Many of the other things you listed -…

Your argument is basically circular reasoning. You say the cultural attitude is based on the unambiguity of violating one's commitments. But the very amount of ambiguity and "wiggle room" we find in marital infidelity compared to corruption, torture, etc... is itself a product of American cultural standards. Culture is self-reinforcing, but you didn't explain why those standards exist, you've just shown how they get…

>How did American society get so there was wiggle room around torture and other war crimes?

The same way Europeans and the rest of the whole world justify that sort of stuff.

"They are terrorists, who cares."

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#239

Post by tptacek »

jdalgetty wrote: post #141

It get's me that so many people are basically saying it serves these people right for using the service. I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. Secondly, I'd wager that many of the users sign up to use Ashley Madison for the thrill of the idea and probably aren't actually cheaters themselves or hooki…

And it's not just this site. Basically, we're a cheering section for crimes committed against people we don't like, and we'll even put effort into valorizing criminals and demonizing victims in order to make our rooting interests simpler.

See, for example, the lionization of Jeremy Hammond and the fantastical elevation of Stratfor, a third-tier foreign policy pundit shop, into a shadowy global intelligence firm.

Want an uncomfortable thought to think? The breakin and doc-dump from Hacking Team: also probably immoral.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#240

Post by ArtDev »

harlanlewis wrote: post #197
jaawn wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this argument really applies. It would be one thing if the site was devoted to assisting "open relationships," but it isn't. It is specifically a service to assist people in "cheating" on their partners (with the assumption being that the partners don't know and wouldn't approve). So, because of this specific detail, I don't think the "people not like me should be treated equally!" argument applies. The…

Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.

The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful.

The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads

Post reply on HN