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

281–290 of 374 posts

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#281

Post by dreamfactory2 »

mikegioia wrote: post #200
coldcode wrote: post #176

People get hacked all the time but the data these folks failed to defend is almost as bad as what the Feds lost. You can always repair your credit, get new cards, even replace your money but you can never ever get back your reputation or your family or the respect of others if you lose that. But giving such a site this type of information (even if you were only curious) is just asking for it to become public. The con…

This is insane, you're saying Ashley Madison should be prosecuted for having their data hacked? Do you have any idea what that means for the rest of the world's websites? And to even make a claim that this is somehow worse than the massively private information the Feds lost is laughable. Do you know what data AM had on its users? Do you think it's even remotely close to the data the Feds had on every single public s…

What's wrong with the idea of having limits on data collection and regulations around their storage? You can't prosecute someone for being the victim of hackers but you can (and should) for not applying reasonable efforts in safeguarding data or storing more than they should.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#282

Post by cmdrfred »

Miner49er wrote: post #250
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.

Adultery is a crime in some states.

So is sodomy, a yet its legal for gay people to get married... law is confusing.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#283

Post by lectrick »

aetherson wrote: post #222
lectrick wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm not saying that these people didn't already set all the dominos up to fall themselves. I just wanted to make the point that if the dominos falling is painful, keeping them up in defiance of truth and gravity is not. > I didn't make any blanket "everyone who does this is bad" statements Yet you said that site's existence was a "net negative" for happiness in the world, which (unless I'm not being logical) impl…

I'm actually having difficulty forming a response that's not just restating what I think because the terms we both used are exactly the ones that are technically necessary to distinguish the concepts. I said "on net, the site adds misery," while saying that any given user who uses the site may be completely innocent. You somehow interpreted that as saying that every single user who uses the site is guilty. So. No. If…

> You somehow interpreted that as saying that every single user who uses the site is guilty. So. No.

Seriously, where did I say this? I just reread my last comment and I said "on average" aka "on net."

I did not claim you said ALL the people who visit it are bad. I even said "on average" in the comment you replied to. Are we reading the same things? BUT... for it to be a net negative, on average, most of the people would, by necessity, need to be bad. I'm taking issue with your average, NOT claiming you are trying to say "all visitors to AM are bad."

You cannot state as fact, nor prove, that most visitors to AM are bad. Your "gut feeling" is as good as a hole in the wall, and I'll explain why... Neither can you state, nor prove, that it is a net negative. Pure and simple. All's fair in love and war. Adultery and all its negatives are going to continue to exist regardless of whether or not AM exists. To paraphrase a famous lyric, "don't hate the [startup appealing to] players, hate the game." Don't conflate the two. Getting rid of AM will not only NOT get rid of adultery, it will spawn imitators which may be even better at this niche market.

Anyway, if people die with their secrets most of the time (which I STRONGLY suspect is the case), how is unhappiness actually added to the world, using your very hypothetical "world negativity measuring device"? To take it a step further, if AM (at least before this breach!) actually made it more likely to be able to hide things until the day you die, it would arguably result in a net positive. (Where the measurement is "happiness of people, even if it requires some ignorance")

The age-old aphorisms "what you don't know, won't hurt you" and "ignorance is bliss" come to mind.

What if the sad fact is that nobody can completely satisfy everyone for all time, and we instead choose to believe a fairy tale, at great peril to our own sanity?

What if there's a significant number of ambiguously-sexual people who are not serviced well enough by the marriage model that we're all pressured to conform to?

What if adultery and AM are just symptoms of society trying too hard to define strict sexual roles?

What if things like AM are simply a stepping-stone to realizing we're simply not a very good mating-to-one-other-being-for-life species and that marriages should be "open by default"? I mean, we're literally just a few genes away from bonobo monkeys who arguably engage in the freakiest most non-committal sex life imaginable: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/evolution-creati...

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#284

Post by aetherson »

bmelton wrote: post #223
aetherson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescript…

"the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't cons…

The only moral principal I have articulated is that I do not think that people should do things which clearly on net add misery to the world. Let's be super clear about this: are you saying that's a bad moral principal?

I have also made descriptive statements about what cheating actually does in the real world versus the people who say, "This site is cool because everyone should be in an open marriage." Which, you know, I doubt the site even agrees with. It looks like it competes based on the illicit nature of its services. It charges you money to delete your profile, guys! And then, the hackers assert, doesn't actually delete your profile.

I think that polygamy should be legal. But this is not a polygamist's website. It's a cheater's website. The logo is of someone making the "shhh" gesture! And all the "but I think everyone should be polygamists" in the world is:

1. Not actually going to happen.

2. Ignoring the actual pain of people who very much did not sign up for or want their spouses to cheat, in service of some silly untenable goal.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#285

Post by cmdrfred »

lukas099 wrote: post #195
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'd be willing to bet that a lot of people saying that are insecure about their own relationships.

Exactly, as someone who has zero worries about my partners fidelity it doesn't bother me one bit what other people do.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#286

Post by Lawtonfogle »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #262
Miner49er wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adultery is a crime in some states.

21 states! Since Lawrence v. Texas though, there is some doubt that a conviction for adultery would withstand a constitutional challenge.

There have been more recent challenges to laws based on the arguments presented in Lawrence v. Texas and yet the laws were upheld. It isn't a safe bet either way. Also, it is far easier to show harm from allowing adultery compared to what was covered under Lawrence v. Texas.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#287

Post by spacemanmatt »

noir_lord wrote: post #136
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #123

If you're going to cheat, expect to be caught. If your search for sex involves putting any personal information online, definitely expect to be caught. If you don't want to be caught, be careful, use pseudonyms, and protect yourself from tracking. Or just ask for a divorce.

There is a third option which is don't cheat. I've never done it but my last long term relationship ended with her doing it, things hadn't been good for a while. Ironically a year out I think her cheating made things easier for me (knowing there was zero way back makes a clean break simpler). I'd never cheat on anyone, I'd end things first no matter the circumstances.

You can say that on an individual basis but it doesn't change the aggregate behavior of our kind.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#288

Post by Retra »

dublinben wrote: post #268
Retra wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that you are advocating for single-point-of-failure, right? That if I learn anything at all about you, that I should be free to share it with whomever I like in any way I want, and for any reason? Do you honestly believe that you are so good at guarding information that you have nothing to fear from it's free propagation? And that this is not only true for you, but for everyone ?

Would censorship legislation prevent you from doing so, if you really wanted to? We should spend more effort removing the potential harm that unwanted information disclosure can cause, rather than running around plugging leaks and jailing whistleblowers.

>Would censorship legislation prevent you from doing so, if you really wanted to?

Would murder legislation prevent you from killing someone if you really wanted to? No? Then I guess there's no point in making murder illegal.

Legislation makes it clear what is sanctioned. It doesn't prevent crime. It defines crime.

>[...] unwanted information disclosure [...]

Legislation is how you say what information disclosure is unwanted. Without it, there is no basis for handling information disclosure at all.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#289

Post by vonklaus »

imglorp wrote: post #221
ChuckMcM wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment that the nature of the site doesn't condone the action. I note that by its nature, it is a very attractive target for thieves as that data could be the basis for extortion. It also might be used in political campaigns or against other public figures. But at the end of the day, it is another example of how organized crime has moved into the "net" and set up shop. Which combined with nation s…

You can now view nation states, organized crime, and single actors as approximately all equivalent in capability, motivation, and disregard for any laws. So the distinction is not important. Any of those actors can, will, and have used such data to meet their goals.

I agree. I think state actors obviously have much stronger technical capabilities and can operate with impunity, but a motivated actor can certainly achieve nefarious ends in most cases. Especially against a large public website where the attack surface is massive and the potential of a breach would provide a wealth of privileged information that would provide substantial motivation.

Re: Online Cheating Site AshleyMadison Hacked

#290

Post by nailer »

cowpewter wrote: post #166
nailer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relationships are complex things. I'd consider the nuances of someone cheating that had a a dead bedroom, terminally ill partner, green card marriage, bisexuality, open marriage, or violent partner before a soldier doing, say, these things: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-r...

I agree with you, but please don't perpetuate the stereotype that bisexuals are inherently unfaithful or incapable of being content in a marriage. Bisexual doesn't mean "must have relationships with multiple genders" it just means "finds multiple genders sexually attractive". Married bisexuals exist, and they don't feel the need to have sex outside their marriages in any greater amount than married straight or gay pe…

You're right. I meant in the context of a partner that is aware of and does not object to the additional relationship.
Post reply on HN