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

[The Brain]

Blow for me!

[Malthus]

'Designed to provide explicit sexchat messages for lonely men for the Ashley Madison website's fake profiles, a computer program inadvertantly achieves sentience when a group of hackers mess with it for a lark ... and goes on to wreak a terrible, yet somehow both rauchy and hilarious, vengence on the human race'

[Eddie Teach]

Sounds like you should get coding.

[grumbler]

It's not like I'm saying I'm glad it happened.  Just that I have a finite amount of "fucks to give" and people who get outed while cheating or trying to cheat on their spouse are a low priority.  Perhaps I just lack the enormous heart tolerance you have.

FTFY.  It's not a matter of "fucks to give" but a matter of refraining from being a Puritan.

[Martinus]

Love hurts.

Love scars.

[Eddie Teach]

Love bites, love bleeds.

[MadImmortalMan]

The problem is, these things go incrementally. Salami tactics.

1: You hear rumors about other peoples' "not-private" information. Not illegal, not immoral?

2: You listen to the police band. You can verify some rumors, begin new ones.    ?

3: You begin showing up at events, altercations, sometimes crime scenes or disasters to see what's going on.  Not usually illegal. Reporters a special case.

4: You begin recording events in a journal. Not illegal.

5: You create a database of all rumors and events that is searchable online and charge people to advertise on it to all the other snoopers.

6: You create an online social network where all participants can add their own data and rumors, including direct updates from police, courts and other official sources. All data is map-searchable, so you can see every place in your neighborhood where any event has taken place, search the dwelling places by marital status, official responder calls, voting registration, taxation, number of children, registered sex offenders, etc. 

It used to be much harder for snoopers to snoop.

[garbon]

It used to be much harder for snoopers to snoop.

I don't see that the current setup is a problem in itself. More like the problem is looking back at 'golden' days that no longer will come back.

[MadImmortalMan]

It used to be much harder for snoopers to snoop.

I don't see that the current setup is a problem in itself. More like the problem is looking back at 'golden' days that no longer will come back.

I think it's more of a question of the public interest conflicting with privacy. I mean, what if I can search my neighborhood and pinpoint every person who donated to LGBT political causes? That might be possible, actually. At some point , the public interest of knowing political donations conflicts in a way that might actually be dangerous.

[garbon]

I don't see how it would be better to keep all donations secret. Seems like it'd be even easier to buy elections than it already is.

[alfred russel]

It used to be much harder for snoopers to snoop.

I don't see that the current setup is a problem in itself. More like the problem is looking back at 'golden' days that no longer will come back.

I think it's more of a question of the public interest conflicting with privacy. I mean, what if I can search my neighborhood and pinpoint every person who donated to LGBT political causes? That might be possible, actually. At some point , the public interest of knowing political donations conflicts in a way that might actually be dangerous.

I'm not making a point by bringing this up, but more of a historical aside. Back in the day, there wasn't a secret ballot. So supporters of political causes would hang out at the precinct where voting took place and try to "influence" voters to support their candidate.

The courts had to draw a line of where inappropriate intimidation began--I can't remember the exact wording of what they used, but the standard was something like the atmosphere was acceptable so long as a man (no women voting back then) of "ordinary fortitude" would not be intimidated from casting a free ballot.

[mongers]

Compared to the promise of it's title, this thread's content leaves me feeling cheated. 

[Malthus]

Compared to the promise of it's title, this thread's content leaves me feeling cheated. 

Not the kind of cheating you were hoping for.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't buy it. Cheating men require women who want cheaters. Otherwise this site would have failed early on.

I get what you are saying I just don't believe it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11817155/Ashley-Madison-employee-told-to-create-hundreds-of-fake-profiles-of-alluring-women.html

Also, some of the "dates" were prostitutes even if the men didn't realize it (they would just ask the man to pay for the hotel room, but would have multiple men do that during the day).

That doesn't seem to be in the link.

Edit: Actually,  the formating of that site is fucked up on my smart phone, and as cut off some of the article, so maybe it does.

[alfred russel]

I don't buy it. Cheating men require women who want cheaters. Otherwise this site would have failed early on.

I get what you are saying I just don't believe it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11817155/Ashley-Madison-employee-told-to-create-hundreds-of-fake-profiles-of-alluring-women.html

Also, some of the "dates" were prostitutes even if the men didn't realize it (they would just ask the man to pay for the hotel room, but would have multiple men do that during the day).

That doesn't seem to be in the link.

Edit: Actually,  the formating of that site is fucked up on my smart phone, and as cut off some of the article, so maybe it does.

What did you do to my post? It wasn't in the link because it wasn't supposed to be. The way you cropped it is really misleading. I read the last point in an article but don't remember where so I didn't link it. Probably wouldn't be hard to find with google.

My original post was:

Item #1
link #1 discussing item #1

Item #2
link #2 discussion item #2

Item #3