http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2015/08/ashley-madison-offers-500000-reward-amid-reports-of-member-suicides/
QuoteAshley Madison offers £300,000 reward amid reports of member suicides
Global investigation involving FBI, Homeland Security pledges no unturned stones.
An international roster of police and private investigators are vowing to vigorously pursue the people who hacked the Ashley Madison dating website for cheaters, with the cheating site offering a $500,000 reward (~£320,000) and appealing for help from hackers around the world.
The full-court press comes amid a report of at least two suicides of people whose personal information was included in the massive dump of account data for Ashley Madison, which carried the tag line "Life is short. Have an affair." It's too early to say if the exposures were the proximate reason the individuals took their lives, but the deaths were discussed during a press conference the Toronto Police Service held early Monday morning. Bryce Evans, acting staff superintendent, said the outing of so many people in committed relationships cheating on their partners crossed a line that could destroy lives and careers of millions of people around the world.
He called on hackers around the world to provide tips to law enforcement agencies working to identify the people who thoroughly rooted the servers of Ashley Madison parent company Avid Life Media. He also said the investigation was being carried out jointly by his department, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the US Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. Additionally, he said Avid Life Media has pledged a $500,000 reward for information leading to the identification of the people responsible for the compromise, who have dubbed themselves Impact Team.
"This is your wake-up call," Evans said, addressing the Impact Team members directly. "We are now doing a serious investigation and inviting all our partners."
Evans said he was appealing to fellow hackers around the world because they or someone they know may have information that was included in the more than 50 gigabytes of data that is now a part of the permanent Internet record. The crowd-sourcing attempt is a potentially savvy move, since hackers often have the mindset and skills police investigators lack in closing in on people carrying out online crimes.
Bryce provided additional color that wasn't widely known until now. For instance, the first indication Ashley Madison had been breached came on the morning of July 12 when several Ashley Madison employees turned on their computers and heard them blaring the AC/DC song "Thunderstruck." A message displayed on their screens informed them of the hack and threatened to release e-mail addresses, credit-card data, and other subscriber information unless executives immediately and permanently took down the Ashley Madison website. A week later, after Ashley Madison failed to comply, people identifying themselves as Impact Team members released details for two Ashley Madison members. The full outing took place last Tuesday.
In the July 12 message, Impact Team members also ordered the shutdown of Established Men, another Avid Life Media-owned dating website for wealthy men and people who want to meet them. So far there are no reports of member data for that site being leaked online. It wouldn't be surprising if information for those subscribers is published soon.
I hope they get those bastards.
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
I don't know. I don't know enough about the kinds of people who use Ashley Madison to make that claim.
I have to say if exposure of sex customers becomes commonplace it would be a pretty radical change. Ashley Madison and all sites for everything from pornography to hookup apps to whatever should all be sweating.
I am with garbon. I don't think it is our business to hound people for adultery, which is not a crime - not to mention that a lot of people who use the site do not have to be adulterers in the first place - people's personal relationships may be subject to all kinds of arrangements that are consensual if not standard and it is not our job as the public to interfere with that.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
I am not even a little bit torn.
If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.
This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.
If the answer to the question of "Do you think people have the right to not have their private information published by hackers" is "Of course! Unless they are jerks/adulterers/Jews/Muslims/women/languish poster/Berkut" then you do not actually buy into the idea that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the first place.
I mean this not really a debate. The laws, and law enforcement, are all clearly on Ashley Madison's side here. The question is how confident we can be on the internet to maintain your privacy for stuff like this.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
I am not even a little bit torn.
If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.
This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.
If the answer to the question of "Do you think people have the right to not have their private information published by hackers" is "Of course! Unless they are jerks/adulterers/Jews/Muslims/women/languish poster/Berkut" then you do not actually buy into the idea that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the first place.
I'm going to have to agree with Berkut. I was actually a little taken aback by Tonitrus's post.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2015, 03:07:49 PM
I mean this not really a debate. The laws, and law enforcement, are all clearly on Ashley Madison's side here. The question is how confident we can be on the internet to maintain your privacy for stuff like this.
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
I thought that Tonitrus was being humorous. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2015, 03:07:49 PM
I mean this not really a debate. The laws, and law enforcement, are all clearly on Ashley Madison's side here. The question is how confident we can be on the internet to maintain your privacy for stuff like this.
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
No? That would kind of defeat the purpose.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2015, 03:15:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2015, 03:07:49 PM
I mean this not really a debate. The laws, and law enforcement, are all clearly on Ashley Madison's side here. The question is how confident we can be on the internet to maintain your privacy for stuff like this.
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
No? That would kind of defeat the purpose.
Of Ashley Madison? Sure. Most dating/hook-up sites? I don't think so.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:29:41 PM
Of Ashley Madison? Sure. Most dating/hook-up sites? I don't think so.
Ah I see where you were going with that. Well I am not sure everybody on dating/hook-up sites wants it released to the world they are a member.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:14:20 PM
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
"The internet" is rather ambiguous, and I agree that it is not very wise to expect privacy at the current state of the art. However one should be able to expect personal privacy. It is an extremely important personal right.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 03:00:06 PM
I am not even a little bit torn.
If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.
This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.
I agree. I think it's maybe a little bit confusing for people because there's constantly news surrounding illegal sexual deviants (e.g. Jared from Subway) so maybe as a knee-jerk people think "another pervert, no sympathy" even though this case is not at all like the typical one involving sex in the news.
Quote from: Valmy on August 24, 2015, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:29:41 PM
Of Ashley Madison? Sure. Most dating/hook-up sites? I don't think so.
Ah I see where you were going with that. Well I am not sure everybody on dating/hook-up sites wants it released to the world they are a member.
Sure, they probably don't. But then, I think we all might stand to gain if people thought a little bit more before they plastered up their nude pics and their rude lines of conversation.
Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2015, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:14:20 PM
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
"The internet" is rather ambiguous, and I agree that it is not very wise to expect privacy at the current state of the art. However one should be able to expect personal privacy. It is an extremely important personal right.
I don't see why you should expect personal privacy when you are posting content to someone else's servers. Maybe if one paid for the privilege, sure.
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2015, 03:12:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
I am not even a little bit torn.
If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.
This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.
If the answer to the question of "Do you think people have the right to not have their private information published by hackers" is "Of course! Unless they are jerks/adulterers/Jews/Muslims/women/languish poster/Berkut" then you do not actually buy into the idea that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the first place.
I'm going to have to agree with Berkut. I was actually a little taken aback by Tonitrus's post.
As a legal matter, I completely agree with all of you, hackers who invade a private company and expose people's personal business is a crime, hang them as high as Haman,. But as to my personal sympathies? If you're going to kill yourself because you're a douche who engages in adultery, and your adulterous affairs were exposed, then "meh". Sure adultery is not a crime, but it is still scummy behavior in my book.
I think that's a rather hard hearted stance. No sympathy for someone who is deranged enough to think suicide is the best option simply because of some indiscretions.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:22:53 PM
I think that's a rather hard hearted stance. No sympathy for someone who is deranged enough to think suicide is the best option simply because of some indiscretions.
I don't agree that suicide is always a deranged act (though concede it likely often is), but is certainly in these cases, likely ana extremely desperate, impulsive one.
I also wouldn't say adultery (especially aided by a site like AM) is just an indiscretion...it is mostly a very callous, selfish act of personal betrayal. That being said, I am not trying to trumpet strict monogamy or old-fashioned values. Have at it with open relationships, casual sex, etc. But if you make that solemn vow to another person, on a human level, adultery is to me, a very heinous, disgusting act. Not happy with your vow anymore? Man (or woman) up and get a divorce.
Though like many things, that is measured in degrees however...I wouldn't equate a drunken hookup at the office holiday party with, say, the guy with another entirely other family on the other end of his regular business trips. But those using AM would almost certainly rank with those more on the more deliberate, callous end of the spectrum.
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect). I cannot think of one plausible reason.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect). I cannot think of one plausible reason.
My point is that it does not matter one bit - even if they are all the most heinous of callous betraying fucking assholes...they still have the right to privacy, if in fact any such right exists for anyone.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect). I cannot think of one plausible reason.
Come on, there are surely lots of plausible reasons:
-person has been told "we're not sleeping together anymore, and only staying together for the children. But I don't care what you do in your free time"
-person is in an abusive relationship, but is very poor, and is looking for a new partner in order to get out
-person's partner is very sick, perhaps even in a coma, with little to no chance of recovery
Maybe you think those decisions are wrong, but they're certainly not reprehensible.
Some bits from one of my faves, Dan Savage.
http://www.wheelercentre.com/notes/f62f0865e03a
Quote'I'm frequently told that I overemphasize the importance of sex. But I think a marriage is about more than sex. I think sex is less important than marriage. I believe there's more than one way to demonstrate your loyalty and commitment. And if your marriage is rendered meaningless the moment your spouse gets naked with someone else – even if it was just that one time on that business trip – then your marriage didn't mean much to begin with.'
Here are some circumstances in which Savage believes it's reasonable for people to cheat:
- When one partner has mysteriously (and temporarily) lost their libido.
- Men or women whose spouses have Alzheimer's and are no longer husbands or wives but nurses and home-health-care aides
- Men and women who are married to people who don't like sex and do their best to make sure sex is so lousy that their spouses will stop pestering them about it.
'If you are expected to be monogamous and have one person be all things sexually for you, then you have to be whores for each other,' Savage told the New York Times in 2011. 'You have to be up for anything.'
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9747384
QuoteOkay, LAH, here's a little something I recently wrote that sums up my position on outside sexual relationships: "Cheating is permissible when it amounts to the least worst option, i.e., it is allowed for someone who has made a monogamous commitment and isn't getting any at home (sick or disabled spouse, or withholding-without-cause spouse) and divorce isn't an option (sick or disabled spouse, or withholding-without-cause-spouse-who-can't-be-divorced-for-some-karma-imperiling-reason-or-other) and the sex on the side makes it possible for the cheater to stay married and stay sane. (An exception can be made for a married person with a kink that his or her spouse can't/won't accommodate, so long as the kink can be taken care of safely and discreetly.)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/dan-savage-infidelity-is-_n_3404378.html
QuoteSavage stopped by Seattle's Q13 Fox station this week to talk about his views on infidelity and his new book, American Savage. Savage said that when two partners have different sexual needs, cheating can be a way to keep their marriage alive.
"If one person is completely done with sex and the other person is not done with sex, what do you advise people to do in that circumstance? Divorce? Traumatize their children?" he said. "I look at that and I say 'You know, do what you need to do to stay married and stay sane. And maybe that involves cheating, but as the lesser of two evils. Divorce is an evil, cheating is an evil, there are circumstances in which cheating is the lesser evil."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/dan-savage-cheating-can-s_n_3362115.html
QuoteRecounting a story from his book about a man who took a lover on the side when his wife's libido disappeared, Savage told host Josh Zepps that there are times when cheating "is the right thing to do."
Sometimes it can save a marriage," he said.
Ultimately, the wife's libido came back, the man parted ways with his lover and their marriage endured. In that situation, Savage says the infidelity was the "lesser of two evils."
"Divorcing his wife, economically disadvantaging his wife, traumatizing his children, versus having this discreet affair on the side -- I look at that and I say the affair was the right thing to do," he said. "Divorce would have been the wrong thing to do. Two wrong things maybe -- two evils -- but divorce was the greater evil."
To those who argue with his logic, claiming that good relationships are built on honesty, Savage says that "relationships aren't depositions."
"We lie to our partners all the time," he said. "There are some truths you don't tell to spare your partner's feelings and to allow them to continue to love you the way they want to love you."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?_r=0
Quote"The mistake that straight people made," Savage told me, "was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey." In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women "the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed," we extended to men the confines women had always endured. "And it's been a disaster for marriage."
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/savage-love-mtv-maggie-gallagher/Content?oid=3590101
QuoteMy wife and I click on just about every level—parenting, money, religion, politics, etc—except for sex. After our last child was born, my advances were increasingly rejected. In an attempt to avoid pressuring her, I stopped initiating. One week passed, nothing. A month passed, nothing. A year passed, nothing. Depression and anger set in. But I was committed to being the "perfect husband," so I still didn't pressure her, hoping her libido would return. It didn't. Our "happy" life continued, and if you were a friend or neighbor, you'd have no idea this was going on. After two years, I finally lost it and confronted her. I expected that an open dialogue would improve the situation, but a month passed and she never brought it back up.
She's a stay-at-home parent, so she does most of the shopping, laundry, etc, but I contribute to the housework. We live in a large house, so we also have housecleaners and landscapers. Additionally, our kids are respectful and have been taught to pick up after themselves. The bottom line is that I've removed all of the obstacles I can think of.
I realize I'm lucky to be happy and fulfilled in just about every area of my life, but I've become fidgety, short-tempered, and hypersensitive. I don't want to have an affair, and I don't want a divorce. I love my wife and our children, but I'm at a loss as to what to do. Knowing there are women out there in the world who actually enjoy sex is devastating (it kills me to listen to you field a call from a sexually confident woman on your podcast). I am mourning the loss of intimacy and connection with another person. —Please Advise Troubled Husband
...
But there are times when monogamy—its pressures, its discontents, its unquestioned acceptance—can destroy an otherwise decent marriage.
Take PATH's marriage. If his wife doesn't come around—if her libido doesn't kick back into gear after mental or medical intervention—this couple is surely headed for divorce. PATH is not only feeling depressed and resentful, he's also contemplating an affair (even if he's in the dismiss-that-idea stage). Sooner or later, he's going to cheat or walk. But this marriage, a marriage that works on every other level ("parenting, money, religion, politics, etc"), could be saved if Mr. and Mrs. PATH were encouraged to openly and honestly discuss their sexual needs and their sexual disconnect. If Mrs. PATH is done with sex—for now, perhaps forever—Mr. and Mrs. PATH should be encouraged to come to a reasonable, mutually agreeable accommodation, one that allows Mr. PATH to get his needs met elsewhere if that's what he needs to stay sane and stay married.
I'm not sure what to call someone who places a higher value on preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over preserving that marriage itself, Maggie, but I wouldn't call that person a defender of marriage.
Quote from: Caliga on August 24, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 03:00:06 PM
I am not even a little bit torn.
If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.
This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.
I agree. I think it's maybe a little bit confusing for people because there's constantly news surrounding illegal sexual deviants (e.g. Jared from Subway) so maybe as a knee-jerk people think "another pervert, no sympathy" even though this case is not at all like the typical one involving sex in the news.
I think Berk's point is that they could be the perviest pervs who ever perved, as long as what they are doing isn't a crime, they have a right to privacy.
I tend to think signing up on a website dedicated to cheating is highly skeevy, but that doesn't change the fact that violating the user's privacy is dead wrong.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 01:57:33 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
I don't know. I don't know enough about the kinds of people who use Ashley Madison to make that claim.
police officers, army officers, White House & DOD officers, etc.
I don't see the benefit for society in publicly shaming people who registered on that website. There's a strong knee jerk reaction of Schadenfreude or to pillory someone who has transgressed against society's norms or done something one strongly disagrees with, but at the end of the day there has to be a balance between the person's right to privacy and the public's and invested parties' need to be informed. And in many cases I would err on the side of privacy.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2015, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:14:20 PM
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
"The internet" is rather ambiguous, and I agree that it is not very wise to expect privacy at the current state of the art. However one should be able to expect personal privacy. It is an extremely important personal right.
I don't see why you should expect personal privacy when you are posting content to someone else's servers. Maybe if one paid for the privilege, sure.
Perhaps one should not expect privacy regarding information freely given away, but that is significantly different than "anything like hookups".
Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2015, 05:19:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 24, 2015, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 03:14:20 PM
I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.
"The internet" is rather ambiguous, and I agree that it is not very wise to expect privacy at the current state of the art. However one should be able to expect personal privacy. It is an extremely important personal right.
I don't see why you should expect personal privacy when you are posting content to someone else's servers. Maybe if one paid for the privilege, sure.
Perhaps one should not expect privacy regarding information freely given away, but that is significantly different than "anything like hookups".
Perhaps I should have specified hook up sites? From my experience, those generally don't require you to divulge much if any personal info unless, yes, one wants to go ahead and register. And then, of course, yes, I don't think one should expect that information to get out - as I said.
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 05:13:59 PM
Some bits from one of my faves, Dan Savage.
I tend to disagree with Dan - the problem is not the sex outside the marriage, the problem is the lying about it. Lying about significant matters tends to be corrosive to a loving relationship. Simply saying "relationships aren't depositions" is just glib. Sure, people lie to each other all the time - about inconsequential stuff. I don't think it is right to lie about things that are important, and from what I've seen, it rarely ends well.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 05:01:33 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect). I cannot think of one plausible reason.
My point is that it does not matter one bit - even if they are all the most heinous of callous betraying fucking assholes...they still have the right to privacy, if in fact any such right exists for anyone.
totally agree. it's none of our business what other people do.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 05:01:33 PM
My point is that it does not matter one bit - even if they are all the most heinous of callous betraying fucking assholes...they still have the right to privacy, if in fact any such right exists for anyone.
They gave a private 3rd party information, and that information was stolen and made public.
That is no more a betrayal of their "right to privacy" than if a guy told a friend in confidence he was having an affair, and the friend went and shared the news broadly.
This is more akin to leaving something really valuable in a car parked in an extremely sketchy neighborhood and having it stolen. It sucks and is a crime, but is an easily foreseeable outcome. If major respected businesses can't keep their data secure, why on earth would you trust an entity like Ashley Madison with a motto of "Life is short, have an affair"? (and yes, that would go for apps like tinder and grindr too)
And I was always told information wanted to be free.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
They gave a private 3rd party information, and that information was stolen and made public.
That is no more a betrayal of their "right to privacy" than if a guy told a friend in confidence he was having an affair, and the friend went and shared the news broadly.
More like the person eavesdropping behind the door blabs to everyone. I think most would agree that that person has invaded your privacy.
The internet:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freverbpress.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2FNosy-neighbor-Gladys-Kravitz-708x350.jpg&hash=1a823c6c4ad5adacf6dadb2565e9b2778db1ea2e)
Only they use social media, police databases and watch lists now instead of just curtain-peeping.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 05:01:33 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect). I cannot think of one plausible reason.
My point is that it does not matter one bit - even if they are all the most heinous of callous betraying fucking assholes...they still have the right to privacy, if in fact any such right exists for anyone.
I was under the impression that the "right to privacy" was a right that existed in relation to the state like the right to speech. It would seem the issue here is theft, rather then invasion of privacy.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 24, 2015, 08:09:25 PM
I was under the impression that the "right to privacy" was a right that existed in relation to the state like the right to speech. It would seem the issue here is theft, rather then invasion of privacy.
Yup. That's the way I see it. Except that the right to privacy vis a vis the state is pretty limited too. AFAIK the only privacy that has been formalized is that of a woman with respect to her womb.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 24, 2015, 08:30:08 PM
Yup. That's the way I see it. Except that the right to privacy vis a vis the state is pretty limited too. AFAIK the only privacy that has been formalized is that of a woman with respect to her womb.
You should look up a case called Roe v Wade. The judgment contained all kinds of references to formal rights to privacy (including attorney-client, doctor-patient, priest-person confessing... on and on. Roe v Wade was actually decided on the basis of a right to privacy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 24, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
They gave a private 3rd party information, and that information was stolen and made public.
That is no more a betrayal of their "right to privacy" than if a guy told a friend in confidence he was having an affair, and the friend went and shared the news broadly.
More like the person eavesdropping behind the door blabs to everyone. I think most would agree that that person has invaded your privacy.
A guy who eavesdrops and shares secrets is an asshole, I agree. Not sure I would start talking about "foundational rights" though.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 24, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
They gave a private 3rd party information, and that information was stolen and made public.
That is no more a betrayal of their "right to privacy" than if a guy told a friend in confidence he was having an affair, and the friend went and shared the news broadly.
More like the person eavesdropping behind the door blabs to everyone. I think most would agree that that person has invaded your privacy.
A guy who eavesdrops and shares secrets is an asshole, I agree. Not sure I would start talking about "foundational rights" though.
My point is that this is not something that people should have even one bit of "Yeah, but..." about. Obviously it is a crime, what I am talking about is how people respond to it - there is a lot of "Gee, of course privacy rights...but HAHAHA THE ADULTERERS GOT CAUGHT!!!!" which makes me rather doubt that they give much of a shit about actual privacy rights to begin with, since they clearly don't understand what it means.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2015, 05:04:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.
That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect). I cannot think of one plausible reason.
Come on, there are surely lots of plausible reasons:
-person has been told "we're not sleeping together anymore, and only staying together for the children. But I don't care what you do in your free time"
-person is in an abusive relationship, but is very poor, and is looking for a new partner in order to get out
-person's partner is very sick, perhaps even in a coma, with little to no chance of recovery
Maybe you think those decisions are wrong, but they're certainly not reprehensible.
Yup, pretty much. There is also something called an open relationship.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 11:16:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 24, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
They gave a private 3rd party information, and that information was stolen and made public.
That is no more a betrayal of their "right to privacy" than if a guy told a friend in confidence he was having an affair, and the friend went and shared the news broadly.
More like the person eavesdropping behind the door blabs to everyone. I think most would agree that that person has invaded your privacy.
A guy who eavesdrops and shares secrets is an asshole, I agree. Not sure I would start talking about "foundational rights" though.
My point is that this is not something that people should have even one bit of "Yeah, but..." about. Obviously it is a crime, what I am talking about is how people respond to it - there is a lot of "Gee, of course privacy rights...but HAHAHA THE ADULTERERS GOT CAUGHT!!!!" which makes me rather doubt that they give much of a shit about actual privacy rights to begin with, since they clearly don't understand what it means.
Yeah, I am on board with you on this fully.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2015, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 05:13:59 PM
Some bits from one of my faves, Dan Savage.
I tend to disagree with Dan - the problem is not the sex outside the marriage, the problem is the lying about it. Lying about significant matters tends to be corrosive to a loving relationship. Simply saying "relationships aren't depositions" is just glib. Sure, people lie to each other all the time - about inconsequential stuff. I don't think it is right to lie about things that are important, and from what I've seen, it rarely ends well.
I think his musings on a recent case of a mid-level executive who was caught "cheating" were much better - essentially, we do not know the reasons or the background, nor we have a right to ask or find it out - this is the content of his right to privacy. BB already gave a number of reasons; the guy could also be in an open relationship, he could have agreed with his wife to hook up with other people (but in the Ashley Madison case, may not want the spouse to know all the details - and neither the spouse may want to know them), etc.
I agree with what Berkut said and ultimately I think this cuts to a deeper issue - we are all a society of horrible busy-bodies. We want and need to know what our neighbours are doing, what they are up to and whether they conform to our standards - and sex and sexual life style are the areas where we are the worst offenders about it. We should learn to leave people alone - but I think in this culture, including the media culture, it is a pipe dream - and focus on our own lives instead (where, I suspect we subconsciously find enough stuff to worry about and be afraid of, that we rather look elsewhere - to our "shadow" we project on other people).
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2015, 11:53:50 PM
I agree with what Berkut said and ultimately I think this cuts to a deeper issue - we are all a society of horrible busy-bodies. We want and need to know what our neighbours are doing, what they are up to and whether they conform to our standards - and sex and sexual life style are the areas where we are the worst offenders about it. We should learn to leave people alone - but I think in this culture, including the media culture, it is a pipe dream - and focus on our own lives instead (where, I suspect we subconsciously find enough stuff to worry about and be afraid of, that we rather look elsewhere - to our "shadow" we project on other people).
That goes too far the other way. We as society are busy-bodies because to some extent that is a necessary condition for society to exist. Societal norms exist for a reason: we're all collectively better off when they are adhered to, but individually there is a lot of temptation and incentive to violate them.
In modern societies we delegated a lot of that enforcement to the judicial authorities, but it's neither practical nor desirable to delegate all of it, unless we want to live under sharia law. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some price to pay for violating societal norms that aren't covered by judicial authorities. The trick is to have the punishment fit the crime, and to have collective flexibility to declare some old societal norms obsolete if that's where the consensus is shifting.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 11:16:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 24, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2015, 06:30:09 PM
They gave a private 3rd party information, and that information was stolen and made public.
That is no more a betrayal of their "right to privacy" than if a guy told a friend in confidence he was having an affair, and the friend went and shared the news broadly.
More like the person eavesdropping behind the door blabs to everyone. I think most would agree that that person has invaded your privacy.
A guy who eavesdrops and shares secrets is an asshole, I agree. Not sure I would start talking about "foundational rights" though.
My point is that this is not something that people should have even one bit of "Yeah, but..." about. Obviously it is a crime, what I am talking about is how people respond to it - there is a lot of "Gee, of course privacy rights...but HAHAHA THE ADULTERERS GOT CAUGHT!!!!" which makes me rather doubt that they give much of a shit about actual privacy rights to begin with, since they clearly don't understand what it means.
I don't see how privacy rights really factor in here that much. An adulterer can't sue his/her partner for revealing the affair and breaching privacy laws. Nor can they charge a third party that set them up for violation of civil rights if they blabbed. It generally is not illegal to reveal information about someone, if it was newspapers wouldn't be able to print anything.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2015, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2015, 05:27:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 24, 2015, 05:13:59 PM
Some bits from one of my faves, Dan Savage.
I tend to disagree with Dan - the problem is not the sex outside the marriage, the problem is the lying about it. Lying about significant matters tends to be corrosive to a loving relationship. Simply saying "relationships aren't depositions" is just glib. Sure, people lie to each other all the time - about inconsequential stuff. I don't think it is right to lie about things that are important, and from what I've seen, it rarely ends well.
I think his musings on a recent case of a mid-level executive who was caught "cheating" were much better - essentially, we do not know the reasons or the background, nor we have a right to ask or find it out - this is the content of his right to privacy. BB already gave a number of reasons; the guy could also be in an open relationship, he could have agreed with his wife to hook up with other people (but in the Ashley Madison case, may not want the spouse to know all the details - and neither the spouse may want to know them), etc.
I agree with what Berkut said and ultimately I think this cuts to a deeper issue - we are all a society of horrible busy-bodies. We want and need to know what our neighbours are doing, what they are up to and whether they conform to our standards - and sex and sexual life style are the areas where we are the worst offenders about it. We should learn to leave people alone - but I think in this culture, including the media culture, it is a pipe dream - and focus on our own lives instead (where, I suspect we subconsciously find enough stuff to worry about and be afraid of, that we rather look elsewhere - to our "shadow" we project on other people).
A gay man against Gossip! Now I've seen everything!
Quote from: DGuller on August 25, 2015, 12:27:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2015, 11:53:50 PM
I agree with what Berkut said and ultimately I think this cuts to a deeper issue - we are all a society of horrible busy-bodies. We want and need to know what our neighbours are doing, what they are up to and whether they conform to our standards - and sex and sexual life style are the areas where we are the worst offenders about it. We should learn to leave people alone - but I think in this culture, including the media culture, it is a pipe dream - and focus on our own lives instead (where, I suspect we subconsciously find enough stuff to worry about and be afraid of, that we rather look elsewhere - to our "shadow" we project on other people).
That goes too far the other way. We as society are busy-bodies because to some extent that is a necessary condition for society to exist. Societal norms exist for a reason: we're all collectively better off when they are adhered to, but individually there is a lot of temptation and incentive to violate them.
In modern societies we delegated a lot of that enforcement to the judicial authorities, but it's neither practical nor desirable to delegate all of it, unless we want to live under sharia law. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some price to pay for violating societal norms that aren't covered by judicial authorities. The trick is to have the punishment fit the crime, and to have collective flexibility to declare some old societal norms obsolete if that's where the consensus is shifting.
Well, it should be known by now that I never held societal norms in high regard. This is a reason I dislike anything with a whiff of puritanism.
Besides, as I said and psychology has amply demonstrated, usually extreme, disproportionate reactions to perceived violations of social norms by others (so, pretty much all the internet lynch mobs we have seen of late) actually result from own, unresolved complexes and frustrations (something called "shadow") that we project on others. It is much healthier to try to resolve those instead - so as a society we should rather encourage introspection and discourage pillorying, at least as long as we think psychological health of the people is a good thing (not necessarily true, at least for most politicians and corporations, who find it easier to manipulate and sell stuff to neurotics).
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 12:28:21 AM
I don't see how privacy rights really factor in here that much. An adulterer can't sue his/her partner for revealing the affair and breaching privacy laws. Nor can they charge a third party that set them up for violation of civil rights if they blabbed. It generally is not illegal to reveal information about someone, if it was newspapers wouldn't be able to print anything.
It's the method of gathering information that is illegal, in large part because it invades people's expectations of privacy.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 25, 2015, 01:20:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 12:28:21 AM
I don't see how privacy rights really factor in here that much. An adulterer can't sue his/her partner for revealing the affair and breaching privacy laws. Nor can they charge a third party that set them up for violation of civil rights if they blabbed. It generally is not illegal to reveal information about someone, if it was newspapers wouldn't be able to print anything.
It's the method of gathering information that is illegal, in large part because it invades people's expectations of privacy.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 02:00:39 AM
If the website revealed the information it had voluntarily, I don't think it would be a crime.
I bet it would be fraud.
On a different note, I saw a commercial for Ashley Madison on TV the other night.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 02:00:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 02:00:39 AM
If the website revealed the information it had voluntarily, I don't think it would be a crime.
I don't know what the US legislation on data protection is, but at least in the EU voluntary or negligent disclosure of sensitive personal data about customers by a business is a serious criminal offence, unless there is an express consent.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 02:20:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 02:00:39 AM
If the website revealed the information it had voluntarily, I don't think it would be a crime.
I don't know what the US legislation on data protection is, but at least in the EU voluntary or negligent disclosure of sensitive personal data about customers by a business is a serious criminal offence, unless there is an express consent.
It's probably buried somewhere in the Terms of Service.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 25, 2015, 02:29:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 02:20:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 02:00:39 AM
If the website revealed the information it had voluntarily, I don't think it would be a crime.
I don't know what the US legislation on data protection is, but at least in the EU voluntary or negligent disclosure of sensitive personal data about customers by a business is a serious criminal offence, unless there is an express consent.
It's probably buried somewhere in the Terms of Service.
By express consent I meant a consent to a specific disclosure (e.g. to transfer it to a subsidiary on whose servers the data is stored), not a blanket consent to disclose the data to anyone under any circumstances. Incidentally, again probably a EU vs US difference, but when it comes to sensitive data protection, the consent needs to be separately given (usually by ticking a box next to the content of the consent on the terms of service form) and cannot be inferred from accepting general T&C.
Meh. Now you complain about caring too much for other people's private lives, in other cases people complain about modern society being a collection of shutoffs never caring what's up in the lives of others.
I wouldn't overdramatise it. People shared private information with the company and the gazillion other customers. Stealing that and sharing it with people the customers did not want it to get shared with is a crime.
And while they have their right to privacy and to have sex with whoever they want to without me interfering, I have the right to have an opinion about the users of the site, which is not particularly positive.
Yes, there can be a million reasons why they decide to cheat on their spouse, I would even concede that many of those are valid reasons, but for MOST of those reasons they would not need to post pictures of their genitalia on a site SPECIFICALLY meant to keep the whole cheating part in secret.
Now, like garbon's Man of Excuse Making pointed out, if a marriage is ONLY about laying exclusive rights on the private parts of your spouse, then it is probably not very strong to begin with HOWEVER the oath of fidelity IS a key part of it unless there is an explicit agreement between the parties otherwise.
Does that make it ok to have their info stolen and published? No, not one bit.
Can that, in turn, make me feel sorry for them? No, not really.
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2015, 03:55:22 AM
Now, like garbon's Man of Excuse Making pointed out
:rolleyes:
Talking about infidelity is one minor thing that Dan Savage has done in his career.
Quote from: garbon on August 25, 2015, 03:59:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2015, 03:55:22 AM
Now, like garbon's Man of Excuse Making pointed out
:rolleyes:
Talking about infidelity is one minor thing that Dan Savage has done in his career.
I don't think Tamas would know about him, unless Dan Savage's interests included goats and beets.
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2015, 03:55:22 AM
Does that make it ok to have their info stolen and published? No, not one bit.
Can that, in turn, make me feel sorry for them? No, not really.
Ditto on both.
Wasn't aware that adultery was still so frowned upon. Yes, it would be better if people were upfront about it, and just call the whole thing off if it's not working, but you just can't *force* people to be faithful. Seems pointless to me.
Then again, being a child of an unhappy marriage I have a lot of contempt for that institution and the expectations placed on it.
Ultimately you can't force people to be faithful, but disincentivizing adultery is still possible IMO.
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
Wasn't aware that adultery was still so frowned upon. Yes, it would be better if people were upfront about it, and just call the whole thing off if it's not working, but you just can't *force* people to be faithful. Seems pointless to me.
Then again, being a child of an unhappy marriage I have a lot of contempt for that institution and the expectations placed on it.
I guess I missed the expectation that people be forced to be married and be faithful. If that is how marriage works in Spain I guess I would have contempt for it to.
Well, they are Catholic.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:41:53 AM
Ultimately you can't force people to be faithful, but disincentivizing adultery is still possible IMO.
I have no issue so long as everybody agrees. I mean no way in hell I would want to be in an open relationship, I would sooner set myself on fire, but it may work for others.
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
Wasn't aware that adultery was still so frowned upon. Yes, it would be better if people were upfront about it, and just call the whole thing off if it's not working, but you just can't *force* people to be faithful. Seems pointless to me.
Then again, being a child of an unhappy marriage I have a lot of contempt for that institution and the expectations placed on it.
Isn't cheating on a lover usually "frowned upon", whether they are married or not? I never heard anyone saying it wasn't bad behaviour.
Now, some folks have relationships that are upfront not exclusive, in which case having sex with others isn't "cheating" (and if they are married, while technically it is 'adultery' I think it isn't a problem). The whole point of cheating is that you are telling the person you purport to love that you are an exclusive couple, presumably in the expectation that
they stay exclusive ... while you go out and have sex with others (and lie about it).
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 09:45:16 AM
Isn't cheating on a lover usually "frowned upon", whether they are married or not? I never heard anyone saying it wasn't bad behaviour.
Excellent point counsel.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
Wasn't aware that adultery was still so frowned upon. Yes, it would be better if people were upfront about it, and just call the whole thing off if it's not working, but you just can't *force* people to be faithful. Seems pointless to me.
Then again, being a child of an unhappy marriage I have a lot of contempt for that institution and the expectations placed on it.
I guess I missed the expectation that people be forced to be married and be faithful. If that is how marriage works in Spain I guess I would have contempt for it to.
For my parents' generation it certainly was.
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:46:58 AM
For my parents' generation it certainly was.
Fair enough.
I never thought that website was actually real.
Also, I don't think it works(ed) at all.
The vast majority of accounts are male and a good portion of the female accounts are fake.
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
Wasn't aware that adultery was still so frowned upon. Yes, it would be better if people were upfront about it, and just call the whole thing off if it's not working, but you just can't *force* people to be faithful. Seems pointless to me.
Then again, being a child of an unhappy marriage I have a lot of contempt for that institution and the expectations placed on it.
I guess I missed the expectation that people be forced to be married and be faithful. If that is how marriage works in Spain I guess I would have contempt for it to.
For my parents' generation it certainly was.
I'd be surprised if any sizable minority of folks signing up for Ashley Madison were conservative types from the older generation for whom marriage was an inescapable social obligation ... ;)
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:49:41 AM
I never thought that website was actually real.
Also, I don't think it works(ed) at all.
The vast majority of accounts are male and a good portion of the female accounts are fake.
I seriously doubt that.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 09:50:39 AM
I'd be surprised if any sizable minority of folks signing up for Ashley Madison were conservative types from the older generation for whom marriage was an inescapable social obligation ... ;)
Well there are those like the Duggars.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:49:41 AM
I never thought that website was actually real.
Also, I don't think it works(ed) at all.
The vast majority of accounts are male and a good portion of the female accounts are fake.
If you didn't know it was real, why would we take your word on whether or not it works? :huh:
Only men cheat those randy buggers.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:48:04 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:46:58 AM
For my parents' generation it certainly was.
Fair enough.
Spain's "marriage rate" is one of the lowest in the EU. I think my generation soured up on it, given the way it worked for our parents.
Granted, Franco's Spain wasn't the healthiest environment for this thing.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2015, 03:55:22 AM
Does that make it ok to have their info stolen and published? No, not one bit.
Can that, in turn, make me feel sorry for them? No, not really.
Ditto on both.
I am perfectly capable of feeling sorry for people who are victims of a crime and have their rights (that I consider important and meaningful) violated even if I think they are assholes for some other reason.
Indeed, using this standard, you should rarely feel sorry for anyone, no matter what happens to them. Because everyone is an asshole in some fashion or another, everyone has some "sin" or another that you can use to claim they had it coming to them. If some state actor throws someone in prison for speaking out, well sure, we all support free speech, but that guy once got in trouble for yelling at his wife, so fuck him.
Nobody here is perfect and without flaws - that is why respect for basic human rights must be unequivocal. Because those who are happy to stomp all over your rights are perfectly capable, and have a long history of, finding some justification for why, in this case only of course, we shouldn't care about that particular losers rights.
Quote from: garbon on August 25, 2015, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:49:41 AM
I never thought that website was actually real.
Also, I don't think it works(ed) at all.
The vast majority of accounts are male and a good portion of the female accounts are fake.
If you didn't know it was real, why would we take your word on whether or not it works? :huh:
Because it's a (weird) dating website and like all of them, it has way more men then women. So unless alot of those women where having a lot of fun. A good chunk of men were left hanging dry.
Quote from: celedhring on August 25, 2015, 09:54:33 AM
Spain's "marriage rate" is one of the lowest in the EU. I think my generation soured up on it, given the way it worked for our parents.
Granted, Franco's Spain wasn't the healthiest environment for this thing.
It could be. Or it could be Spanish youth have little access to work and a tricky future. Or both.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
I am perfectly capable of feeling sorry for people who are victims of a crime and have their rights (that I consider important and meaningful) violated even if I think they are assholes for some other reason.
Indeed, using this standard, you should rarely feel sorry for anyone, no matter what happens to them. Because everyone is an asshole in some fashion or another, everyone has some "sin" or another that you can use to claim they had it coming to them. If some state actor throws someone in prison for speaking out, well sure, we all support free speech, but that guy once got in trouble for yelling at his wife, so fuck him.
Nobody here is perfect and without flaws - that is why respect for basic human rights must be unequivocal. Because those who are happy to stomp all over your rights are perfectly capable, and have a long history of, finding some justification for why, in this case only of course, we shouldn't care about that particular losers rights.
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 you have.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:56:45 AM
Because it's a (weird) dating website and like all of them, it has way more men then women. So unless alot of those women where having a lot of fun. A good chunk of men were left hanging dry.
Again...color me doubtful. Women outnumber men on dating websites, or at least they did back in 2007. Now the weird part may be true but there is nothing especially unconventional about cheating.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
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.
And it is not like you giving more fucks is going to help anything. The FBI has fucks to give and that is what counts.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:00:09 AM
And it is not like you giving more fucks is going to help anything. The FBI has fucks to give and that is what counts.
True. But for some reason it matters to Berkut that I don't feel bad for these people.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2015, 03:55:22 AM
Does that make it ok to have their info stolen and published? No, not one bit.
Can that, in turn, make me feel sorry for them? No, not really.
Ditto on both.
I am perfectly capable of feeling sorry for people who are victims of a crime and have their rights (that I consider important and meaningful) violated even if I think they are assholes for some other reason.
Indeed, using this standard, you should rarely feel sorry for anyone, no matter what happens to them. Because everyone is an asshole in some fashion or another, everyone has some "sin" or another that you can use to claim they had it coming to them. If some state actor throws someone in prison for speaking out, well sure, we all support free speech, but that guy once got in trouble for yelling at his wife, so fuck him.
Nobody here is perfect and without flaws - that is why respect for basic human rights must be unequivocal. Because those who are happy to stomp all over your rights are perfectly capable, and have a long history of, finding some justification for why, in this case only of course, we shouldn't care about that particular losers rights.
Yeah, it's a classic "first they came for X" scenario.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:56:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 25, 2015, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:49:41 AM
I never thought that website was actually real.
Also, I don't think it works(ed) at all.
The vast majority of accounts are male and a good portion of the female accounts are fake.
If you didn't know it was real, why would we take your word on whether or not it works? :huh:
Because it's a (weird) dating website and like all of them, it has way more men then women. So unless alot of those women where having a lot of fun. A good chunk of men were left hanging dry.
I have to agree. From experience, most gay hook up sites also have way more men.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 25, 2015, 03:55:22 AM
Does that make it ok to have their info stolen and published? No, not one bit.
Can that, in turn, make me feel sorry for them? No, not really.
Ditto on both.
I am perfectly capable of feeling sorry for people who are victims of a crime and have their rights (that I consider important and meaningful) violated even if I think they are assholes for some other reason.
Indeed, using this standard, you should rarely feel sorry for anyone, no matter what happens to them. Because everyone is an asshole in some fashion or another, everyone has some "sin" or another that you can use to claim they had it coming to them. If some state actor throws someone in prison for speaking out, well sure, we all support free speech, but that guy once got in trouble for yelling at his wife, so fuck him.
Nobody here is perfect and without flaws - that is why respect for basic human rights must be unequivocal. Because those who are happy to stomp all over your rights are perfectly capable, and have a long history of, finding some justification for why, in this case only of course, we shouldn't care about that particular losers rights.
Never mind that I explicitly pointed out that I consider what happened to these people a crime that should be punished.
I just mentioned that just because that is the case, I will not go overboard and shed tears for them.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
I am perfectly capable of feeling sorry for people who are victims of a crime and have their rights (that I consider important and meaningful) violated even if I think they are assholes for some other reason.
It's also possible to not feel sorry for the victims but still believe the crime should be prosecuted.
It doesn't take a dedicated site to be a sleazebag. 42% of people using Tinder have a partner, and 30% are married.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:00:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
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.
And it is not like you giving more fucks is going to help anything. The FBI has fucks to give and that is what counts.
If there is a general public insensitivity to crimes happening to a certain group, then usually law enforcement also does not treat persecuting those crimes as their top priority (this is why until recently hardly any violence against LGBT people or cops killing black people were investigated - because the general public didn't have "any fucks to give").
I'm with Berkut (and Dr King) that "injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere" and I am offended by your indifference.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
Only men cheat those randy buggers.
I do think women are likely to be more wary of signing up for a cheatin' site. Women tend to be more wary of such things, for safety reasons: sites that look tawdry won't appeal to them as much. Same reason why men are more into the market for prostitutes than women are.
I think women may be just as prone to affairs, but they will go about it differently.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 25, 2015, 10:09:10 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
I am perfectly capable of feeling sorry for people who are victims of a crime and have their rights (that I consider important and meaningful) violated even if I think they are assholes for some other reason.
It's also possible to not feel sorry for the victims but still believe the crime should be prosecuted.
Yes.
Unless of course it is the issue of the week in the Advocate
Quote from: Brazen on August 25, 2015, 10:10:09 AM
It doesn't take a dedicated site to be a sleazebag. 42% of people using Tinder have a partner, and 30% are married.
Maybe for us gays the perception is different (given that most people on hook-up sites actually advertise themselves as "in an (open) relationship" even if they are not in any relationship, as this increases their attractiveness)...
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
Only men cheat those randy buggers.
I do think women are likely to be more wary of signing up for a cheatin' site. Women tend to be more wary of such things, for safety reasons: sites that look tawdry won't appeal to them as much. Same reason why men are more into the market for prostitutes than women are.
I think women may be just as prone to affairs, but they will go about it differently.
Yeah, apparently according to some research I read recently, women are more prone to long, drawn-out affairs while men are more prone to just having sex on a side every now and then. Which is not really surprising.
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:56:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 25, 2015, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 25, 2015, 09:49:41 AM
I never thought that website was actually real.
Also, I don't think it works(ed) at all.
The vast majority of accounts are male and a good portion of the female accounts are fake.
If you didn't know it was real, why would we take your word on whether or not it works? :huh:
Because it's a (weird) dating website and like all of them, it has way more men then women. So unless alot of those women where having a lot of fun. A good chunk of men were left hanging dry.
I have to agree. From experience, most gay hook up sites also have way more men.
Do gay men have a cheating website?
:hmm: ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
Only men cheat those randy buggers.
I do think women are likely to be more wary of signing up for a cheatin' site. Women tend to be more wary of such things, for safety reasons: sites that look tawdry won't appeal to them as much. Same reason why men are more into the market for prostitutes than women are.
I think women may be just as prone to affairs, but they will go about it differently.
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. Supposedly the safety reason was why women would avoid online dating and they most assuredly have not.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:26:46 AM
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.
According to the Guardian, it was 70% male:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/it-hurts-but-im-going-to-defend-ashley-madison-and-37-million-cheaters
And according to a former employee as reported by the Telegraph, the site invented many of the women that were there.
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).
Well I stand corrected. Nice little scheme by those prostitutes. How many people can say they hired a prostitute by accident?
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
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.
Do you feel the same way about DGuller, that he violated my basic human rights by revealing what was told to him in confidence?
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:12:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 09:52:28 AM
Only men cheat those randy buggers.
I do think women are likely to be more wary of signing up for a cheatin' site. Women tend to be more wary of such things, for safety reasons: sites that look tawdry won't appeal to them as much. Same reason why men are more into the market for prostitutes than women are.
I think women may be just as prone to affairs, but they will go about it differently.
I don't buy it. Cheating men require women who want cheaters. Otherwise this site would have failed early on.
My wife and I used to joke about those late-night "party chat lines" that advertise that tons of hott women have nothing better to do than to hang out and talk to lonely guys at two in the morning. The Simpsons made fun of that as well, with Apu saying "this party is not as hot as advertised" or something. Now, I have no real clue as to the percentage of guys on such sites ... ;)
Point is that sites like this are selling the hope of having an affair, and as long as they can sell that, the actual incidence of successful affairs is immaterial.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2015, 10:46:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
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.
Do you feel the same way about DGuller, that he violated my basic human rights by revealing what was told to him in confidence?
IN this case, no, because you are a d-bag. So it is ok. :P
Actually...wtf are you even talking about?
QuoteMy wife and I used to joke about those late-night "party chat lines" that advertise that tons of hott women have nothing better to do than to hang out and talk to lonely guys at two in the morning. The Simpsons made fun of that as well, with Apu saying "this party is not as hot as advertised" or something. Now, I have no real clue as to the percentage of guys on such sites ... ;)
Point is that sites like this are selling the hope of having an affair, and as long as they can sell that, the actual incidence of successful affairs is immaterial.
That is different. And it is very much material. This is a hookup site that requires physical people to show up and hookup in order to keep their customer base in existence.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:50:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 10:47:33 AM
IN this case, no, because you are a d-bag. So it is ok. :P
Actually...wtf are you even talking about?
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. :(
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.
QuoteI 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. :P
Quote from: Brazen on August 25, 2015, 10:55:31 AM
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:50:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:59:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:50:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:49:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Brazen on August 25, 2015, 10:55:31 AM
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).
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
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. :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:59:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 11:03:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
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. :P
What can we say? Our lifestyle is appealing.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2015, 10:53:28 AM
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?
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 11:04:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 25, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 25, 2015, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 25, 2015, 02:00:39 AM
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.
Exactly.
The sacred Canticles of Grumbler denouncing the heretic Raz are inviolable.
Quote from: Berkut on August 25, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
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.
Berkut, what crime do you think was committed by outing someone (not getting the information to begin with)? Could you tell me exactly what right protects you from the communications of a third party?
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 11:19:10 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2015, 10:53:28 AM
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?
grindr (not sure if I am violating DGuller's human rights by mentioning that, as he made me promise not to tell anyone)
It is beautiful when accountants fall in love.
Quote from: Berkut on August 24, 2015, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 24, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers. :hmm:
I am not even a little bit torn.
If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.
This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.
If the answer to the question of "Do you think people have the right to not have their private information published by hackers" is "Of course! Unless they are jerks/adulterers/Jews/Muslims/women/languish poster/Berkut" then you do not actually buy into the idea that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the first place.
what he said
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 12:19:01 PM
It is beautiful when accountants fall in love.
I wouldn't describe what happened that day as love. :perv: :boff: :pinch: :cry:
Love hurts.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 12:19:01 PM
It is beautiful when accountants fall in love.
Even when it is self-love?
Quote from: Brazen on August 25, 2015, 10:55:31 AM
I don't understand women who attack the single girls their partners slept with rather than just kick said partner to the kerb.
There's a school of thought that says you fight for your man/woman. It has never had much appeal to me.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 25, 2015, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 12:19:01 PM
It is beautiful when accountants fall in love.
Even when it is self-love?
Depends on how hot the accountant is.
There's no accounting for taste.
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 11:07:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 10:59:34 AM
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.
Apparently, according to the articles above, many of that 30% were either (1) invented by the site, or (2) hookers. So the chances of a 'legitimate' cheating hook-up were pretty slim if you were a guy, due to a relative scarcity of legitimate female cheaters using the site.
Doesn't that prove my point, rather? :hmm:
So what if they're invented by the site? A mouth is a mouth.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2015, 12:43:31 PM
Doesn't that prove my point, rather? :hmm:
Well I conceded from the beginning that you may be right. I was just skeptical.
Quote from: The Brain on August 25, 2015, 12:44:50 PM
So what if they're invented by the site? A mouth is a mouth.
I have no mouth, and I must give blowjobs?
A modern take on the classic Harlan Ellison story?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream
Blow for me! :punk:
'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'
Sounds like you should get coding.
Quote from: derspiess on August 25, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
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.
Love bites, love bleeds.
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 25, 2015, 03:04:24 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on August 25, 2015, 03:21:28 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 25, 2015, 03:04:24 PM
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 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. ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 25, 2015, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 25, 2015, 03:21:28 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 25, 2015, 03:04:24 PM
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.
Compared to the promise of it's title, this thread's content leaves me feeling cheated. :(
Quote from: mongers on August 25, 2015, 04:12:28 PM
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.
;)
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2015, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:26:46 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2015, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 25, 2015, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 25, 2015, 10:26:46 AM
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
I assumed you would not post an accusation like that without a source and that it must also have been in the latest link. I w8ll be less charitable next time.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2015, 12:15:49 AM
I assumed you would not post an accusation like that without a source and that it must also have been in the latest link. I w8ll be less charitable next time.
I post 3 disjointed statements and 2 links between them, and you think all 3 were supported by articles? Deductive reasoning doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Anyway, it took all of a minute to google this article, with this section:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/71394419/former-ashley-madison-employee-claims-she-was-paid-to-create-fake-profiles
QuoteA source close to the FBI investigation into the leak has told The Daily Telegraph that examinations of the database suggest many of the female profiles on the site were created by a relatively small number of individuals.
The ranks of female members may have been further bolstered by prostitutes using the site to organise business with men who believed them to be frustrated married women.
As related by a reader of the Sydney Morning Herald: "[The woman] books a hotel room and arranges to meet a number of men at intervals during the day; all she asks of her 'lover' is that he pays for the room rental; after a quick liaison, she gets rid of him [...] then gets ready for the next man."
"Some sites turn a blind eye", the reader said, "or even actively engage women to play this role, so that they can fulfil their guarantee that any man signing up to meet a certain number of ladies actually gets to do so".
Ashley Madison says on its website that it cannot "guarantee the authenticity of any profile". It relies wholly on men for its profits; women can join for free.
:hmm: That's actually a pretty neat setup.
Told ya.
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2015, 02:02:16 PM
FTFY. It's not a matter of "fucks to give" but a matter of refraining from being a Puritan.
FO LIFE, YO.
Quote from: DGuller on August 26, 2015, 12:42:01 AM
:hmm: That's actually a pretty neat setup.
Yep.
QuoteTold ya.
You guys really know how to rub it in :P
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/08/25/22756209/letters-from-ashley-madison-users
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2015, 12:58:12 PM
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/08/25/22756209/letters-from-ashley-madison-users
Man, she really needs to get laid if she's frustrated and bored enough to write a letter that long.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2015, 01:46:42 PM
Man, she really needs to get laid if she's frustrated and bored enough to write a letter that long.
If only there was a website that could help connect her with like-minded partners.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2015, 07:54:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 25, 2015, 02:02:16 PM
FTFY. It's not a matter of "fucks to give" but a matter of refraining from being a Puritan.
FO LIFE, YO.
I came for the sexual repression. I stayed for the funky hat with a buckle on it.
I came for the righteous execution of tyrants.
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2015, 01:54:05 PM
I came for the sexual repression. I stayed for the funky hat with a buckle on it.
Seriously. A hat with a damned buckle. Genius.
And repressed Puritan women are pretty fun behind closed doors :)
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2015, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2015, 01:54:05 PM
I came for the sexual repression. I stayed for the funky hat with a buckle on it.
Seriously. A hat with a damned buckle. Genius.
And repressed Puritan women are pretty fun behind closed doors :)
Did they teach you what that buckle was for? :perv:
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2015, 01:56:11 PM
And repressed Puritan women are pretty fun behind closed doors :)
Ah, just like the closeted Repub gays. :swiss:
Which do you tend to meet more of, closeted gays or closeted Republicans?
We had several closeted Republicans in my own family. My staunchly Democrat great grandfather died and they all came out of the woodwork. Course, should have known given their devoted church going ways.
Quote from: derspiess on August 26, 2015, 01:56:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 26, 2015, 01:54:05 PM
I came for the sexual repression. I stayed for the funky hat with a buckle on it.
Seriously. A hat with a damned buckle. Genius.
And repressed Puritan women are pretty fun behind closed doors :)
That's where there were only so many fucks that could be given
http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2015, 06:43:21 PM
http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
:lol:
QuoteWhat I discovered was that the world of Ashley Madison was a far more dystopian place than anyone had realized. This isn't a debauched wonderland of men cheating on their wives. It isn't even a sadscape of 31 million men competing to attract those 5.5 million women in the database. Instead, it's like a science fictional future where every woman on Earth is dead, and some Dilbert-like engineer has replaced them with badly-designed robots.
So it's like Cherry 2000 (except for all the dead women).
Was Ashley Madison .......... cheating?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2015, 06:43:21 PM
http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
That's even worse than I thought. :lol:
Found this interesting.
Both the Impact Team and disgruntled users of Ashley Madison have called the site fraudulent, mostly because the company charged men to shut down their accounts
I'd hope for Ashley Madison's sake they kept the company thinly capitalized.
I used to audit a company that was both highly profitable and in a rather dodgy business. As soon as assets came in the door, they were paid out as dividends and they stayed loaded with massive amounts of debt.
It would be amusing to discover that Ashley Madison has like $50k in assets and is loaded with debt many times that.