Ashley Madison offers £300,000 reward amid reports of member suicides

[Brazen]

Is the Ashley Madison premise that all members are EDIT: married/in relationships, or are a proportion single people who don't want to commit or just have a thing for people already in relationships? Are they both as bad as each other and/or Hitler?

I don't understand women who attack the single girls their partners slept with rather than just kick said partner to the kerb.

[Valmy]

I met up with DGuller, who thought he was meeting with Dorsey, and told him--in confidence!- that I had an alternate account that was Alfred Russel. Like 7 or 8 years later he told the mods by PM.

My basic human rights were violated.

I don't think it works like that.

[Valmy]

Is the Ashley Madison premise that all members are single, or are a proportion single people who don't want to commit or just have a thing for people already in relationships? Are they both as bad as each other and/or Hitler?

I thought the premise was to link up cheating ladies with cheating dudes.

I don't understand women who attack the single girls their partners slept with rather than just kick said partner to the kerb.

Because they love their partner and are acting out irrationally I presume.

[Malthus]

That is different. This is a hookup site that requires physical people to show up and hookup in order to keep their customer base in existence.

I dunno if it does. It needs its customers to continue to *hope* for a hookup.

Because there are no other hookup sites on the internet they could use? Their tiny little hope is only sustained by Ashley Madison?

The selling point is that you are hooking up with someone who is also a cheater and so don't have to worry about them being angry that you have a wife/husband, and who won't make a scene or call up your wife/husband out of jealosy, and won't expect all the stuff that goes with an ordinary-type relationship. The promise is of easy, no-strings, no-consequences cheating sex.

[Martinus]

That is different. This is a hookup site that requires physical people to show up and hookup in order to keep their customer base in existence.

I dunno if it does. It needs its customers to continue to *hope* for a hookup.

Because there are no other hookup sites on the internet they could use? Their tiny little hope is only sustained by Ashley Madison?

The selling point is that you are hooking up with someone who is also a cheater and so don't have to worry about them being angry that you have a wife/husband, and who won't make a scene or call up your wife/husband out of jealosy, and won't expect all the stuff that goes with an ordinary-type relationship. The promise is of easy, no-strings, no-consequences cheating sex.

So it's basically breeders wanting to feel like gays for a while.

[Malthus]

Is the Ashley Madison premise that all members are EDIT: married/in relationships, or are a proportion single people who don't want to commit or just have a thing for people already in relationships? Are they both as bad as each other and/or Hitler?

I don't understand women who attack the single girls their partners slept with rather than just kick said partner to the kerb.

I dunno if the actively discouraged singles or not, but the idea was that typically both would be cheaters and so both would be equally inclined to secrecy and furtive hookups (and uninterested in 'falling in love'/having an ordinary type relationship).

[Malthus]

So it's basically breeders wanting to feel like gays for a while.

You'd positively shit if you saw my gay neighbours. They are more hetero-normative than I am.   

[Valmy]

So it's basically breeders wanting to feel like gays for a while.

Not sure what you mean. We have a hookup culture as well. Everybody on the internet is freaking out about it. I say: play on playas.

[Valmy]

The selling point is that you are hooking up with someone who is also a cheater and so don't have to worry about them being angry that you have a wife/husband, and who won't make a scene or call up your wife/husband out of jealosy, and won't expect all the stuff that goes with an ordinary-type relationship. The promise is of easy, no-strings, no-consequences cheating sex.

And I am saying there is plenty of competition for that market out there. If you never get a hook you will bail.

But anyway I am not sure what you are pounding on me for still. The M/F ration is 70:30 so there we are.

[Valmy]

So it's basically breeders wanting to feel like gays for a while.

You'd positively shit if you saw my gay neighbours. They are more hetero-normative than I am.   

What can we say? Our lifestyle is appealing.

[derspiess]

I don't give a fuck that they were outed, I give a fuck that their personal and private information was outed, and that people are so apparently gleeful and smug about it.

Personally, I don't give two shits about them per se - I do care about respect for basic human rights, and hence derive zero pleasure from wholesale violations of them.

Perhaps you're talking to someone else, then.  Because I am neither gleeful nor smug-- just indifferent.

[derspiess]

I met up with DGuller, who thought he was meeting with Dorsey, and told him--in confidence!- that I had an alternate account that was Alfred Russel. Like 7 or 8 years later he told the mods by PM.

My basic human rights were violated.

Was this all through Ashley Madison?

[Valmy]

 

[garbon]

So it's basically breeders wanting to feel like gays for a while.

Not sure what you mean. We have a hookup culture as well. Everybody on the internet is freaking out about it. I say: play on playas.

Players gonna play, haters gonna hate.

[Razgovory]

Yes, the method of gathering the information is illegal here because it is theft (or whatever the computer equivalent here is).  Not because it violates others expectations of privacy.  If the website revealed the information it had voluntarily, I don't think it would be a crime.  Websites sell user information all the time.  It would depend on all that little text they make you agree to, but I don't think there is a hard and fast law that says a private entity can't reveal information about another private entity.  There are always some expectations.  I don't know if you can reveal someone's credit card information (that might be abeding fraud), and there are defamation laws (which are weak in the US), and a few other laws that rarely used and of dubious ability to prosecute.

If I were to invite you to my house and we talked privately, there is no way I can legally prevent you from telling others what we talked about, or that the carpet was dirty, or that I wore brown trousers.  The constitution doesn't protect private parties from talking about one another, which is good since it would severely impede the First Amendment.

You could choose not to invite me into your house and not to say anything to me. Since you chose to reveal those things to me, you're accepting the risk that I reveal them to others. That doesn't mean you accept some third party spying on the conversation and publishing a transcript.

If Ashley Madison revealed the information themselves, it would probably go against the agreements they made with users. Assuming it didn't, they would be in their rights to do so. But that's not what's at issue here. You can call this hack a theft- but what did they steal? Confidential personal information. It was a violation of the users' privacy.

The third party spying on you would only get in trouble if they did so in an illegal way.  For instance, trespassing or burglary.

I really doesn't matter what they stole.  It could have been computer code, omelet recipes, or written demands by Grumbler that everyone ignore me.  The central issue is the the theft.