Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked • Hacker News Board

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#331

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 12:08 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #239

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…

You can't see a big difference in morality in hacking Hacking Team and hacking a dating site? Hacking Team was literally poisoning computing, and brewing novel, secret poisons.

I bet most Europeans are having a chuckle at the structure of American morality in the Ashley Madison case. So much hypocrisy. Huh. Maybe both hacks will result in more realism.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#332

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 12:16 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #234

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

First of all, I'm not one of these big-L Libertarian theorists, but I'm still baffled by "Nobody has a right to private criminality."

That's exactly what the 4th is meant to draw a line around: If you can't detect the crime without building a pervasive surveillance state, it probably shouldn't be a crime and we're going to make it hard to detect and prosecute. "Private criminality" is an oxymoron.

Making abortion illegal is way into the territory of the criminalization of supposedly "private criminality." So would be the outlawing of encryption without back doors.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#333

Post by pizzeys » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 12:45 AM UTC

wl wrote: post #264

mdip wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only concern is for those who's credit card information was used illegally. If I were an employer, I'd be concerned about hiring someone who joined this site. Most jobs put people in a position where they could "get away" with theft or other illegal activities that could deeply harm the company and I can see employers being very concerned about hiring someone associated with the site. Those folks just had their li…

Someone signed up for an account and mistakenly used my first initial + last name @ gmail address. Support refused to purge my address from their system unless I paid them, something I refused to do. I guess one of my email addresses is in this dump.

Nice try, but I'm not sure this is going to work :(

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#334

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 12:46 AM UTC

josinalvo wrote: post #263

john_b wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that shooting someone is generally illegal, whereas having an affair is not. Allocate your sympathy as you wish, but don't pretend that a person deserves to be the victim of a crime because you or anyone else find their behavior distasteful.

To cheat, to break your word given to a life partner, is not just distasteful. It is wrong. It makes the world a darker place, and not only to you and your partner (and that is what wrong means) I know this kind of statement is viewed with distrust. And I see why this is so. But I think some moral discussion might be good (rather than just the bland 'lets not judge') First, I am not saying that I think all marriages…

[deleted]

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#335

Post by philwelch » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 12:54 AM UTC

josinalvo wrote: post #263

john_b wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that shooting someone is generally illegal, whereas having an affair is not. Allocate your sympathy as you wish, but don't pretend that a person deserves to be the victim of a crime because you or anyone else find their behavior distasteful.

To cheat, to break your word given to a life partner, is not just distasteful. It is wrong. It makes the world a darker place, and not only to you and your partner (and that is what wrong means) I know this kind of statement is viewed with distrust. And I see why this is so. But I think some moral discussion might be good (rather than just the bland 'lets not judge') First, I am not saying that I think all marriages…

Cheating is also something that roughly 50-70% of married people do. Sex, along with food, water, and drugs, is one the basic, biological human compulsions and it's part of the human condition, for a large majority of us, to fall victim to it against our better judgment. As wrong as it is to cheat, it's even more wrong (and more harmful, which is perhaps the same thing) to invade people's privacy and expose cheating.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#336

Post by cjsthompson » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:46 AM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #319

cjsthompson wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's discuss how we are forced to live with people who don't share our standards of behavior (like those who cling to 17th century individualistic philosophy which science has long debunked) and force us to compromise on the kind of society we want because of centralized government. Let's also discuss how human behavioral biology predicts that if you are in favor of polygamy you are highly likely to be an arrogant,…

In another reply in this subthread, I explain my ideas about compromise based upon what I learned in elementary school. It may make me slightly uncomfortable to share the land with flat-earthers, but as long as they don't try to teach astronomy to my children I'll leave them be. I might even have them over for dinner or mow their lawn when they're away since, aside from being morons who don't vote the same as me, the…

What's wrong with eugenism? Technology allows eugenism to be implemented without being unfair to anyone. But I fail to see how eugenism is needed to allow monogamous humans to exist on their own terms. I guess mentionning eugenism here is just a 'reductio ad hitlerum'.

Monogamous humans should be able to function in their own societies, with their own laws and a culture adapted to the non-trivial differences in social behavior monogamy entails without having to put up with the predatory behavior of polygamous humans and the cultural propaganda to glorify it. It's been shown that for monogamy as a trait to continue to exist it needs to be the dominant behavior in a group of animals. Others are free to revel in the "joys" of dog-eat-dog polygamous primate societies as long as they engage in this with others who consent.

Also noone exists in a vacuum. One's actions affect others (directly or indirectly) particularly when they live in the same society. Having people with deeply conflicting standards of behavior coexist in a futile attempt at a one-size-fits-all society that inherently favors one group over the other is not going to work.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#337

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 2:23 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #331

tptacek wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can't see a big difference in morality in hacking Hacking Team and hacking a dating site? Hacking Team was literally poisoning computing, and brewing novel, secret poisons. I bet most Europeans are having a chuckle at the structure of American morality in the Ashley Madison case. So much hypocrisy. Huh. Maybe both hacks will result in more realism.

It isn't remotely difficult for me to understand why people don't like HT and Ashley Madison. I don't like either of them myself.

However, millions and millions of people like Planned Parenthood even less than they like Hacking Team.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#338

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 2:24 AM UTC

dimino wrote: post #323

tptacek wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can make that argument about anything, so what you're saying is "I don't believe there should be such a thing as privacy".

Maybe, maybe not -- I'd love to discuss it. More importantly, I wanted to reframe your comment in a way that was productive. Instead of "Nobody has a right to private criminality.", it seems more conversational to say "Nobody has a right to private amorality."

Clearly the disagreement here is that I do think people have a right to privacy w/r/t/ amorality.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#339

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 2:25 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #332

tptacek wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

First of all, I'm not one of these big-L Libertarian theorists, but I'm still baffled by "Nobody has a right to private criminality." That's exactly what the 4th is meant to draw a line around: If you can't detect the crime without building a pervasive surveillance state, it probably shouldn't be a crime and we're going to make it hard to detect and prosecute. "Private criminality" is an oxymoron. Making abortion ill…

If you can't detect the crime without building a pervasive surveillance state, it probably shouldn't be a crime and we're going to make it hard to detect and prosecute

This makes no sense to me at all. It is, for instance, incredibly difficult to track and prosecute child pornographers.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#340

Post by ddingus » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #273

ddingus wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little more subtle than "getting away with sex" A lot of people in the US proclaim some sort of moral purity and or authority. Others, do not. This breaks down roughly along party lines, with one party running on moral purity and or authority and the other running on a more general concept of social justice and equality. And that's just for visualizing how it works. There are strong purity factions everywhere.…

>In the end, he was not impeached... Er, yes he was? He wasn't removed from office.

On January 7, 1999, in a congressional procedure not seen since the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, the trial of President Clinton got underway in the Senate. As instructed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (William Rehnquist at this time) was sworn in to preside, and the senators were sworn in as jurors.

Five weeks later, on February 12, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. The president was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty,” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50. After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was “profoundly sorry” for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.

*Yes, he did go through impeachment proceedings, but was acquitted on the articles of impeachment.

Sorry, should have been more clear. It was just an example anyway. Didn't mean to endorse, or imply anything about Clinton, just to show how the two coarse factions I mentioned in my comment differ and impact how sex related things very often plays out.