Is it just me, or does it sound like the (anonymous!) journalist intended to send this to his or her partner, and accidentally published instead?
Some readers of the Register – or perhaps their spouses or significant others, or their bosses or colleagues or other people who may think they want to know if someone is "trustworthy" – may have heard that it is now possible to search online for evidence that a person may have been using the website Ashley Madison. Some users …
it's interesting what the number of up and downvotes tells me about thoroughness of my fellow humans (including myself!), including the beings, allegedly made of better material, featuring in this forum. I think we should keep the balance of comments on the first opinion the way it is, makes the point even sharper. So upvote the first post, and you shall see!
Sad, sad times :)
> it's interesting what the number of up and downvotes tells me [blah blah blah snip]
On the other hand I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
I understood the article and appreciated the humour, even if it didn't hit the mark for everyone and I think the "wrong recipient" comment is from someone who did actually get it. What is bizarre is the number of people commenting who had nothing but "whoosh" even with the humungous flashing-neon flag of the writer's name disclaimer.
The line that made me chuckle was this
"But is it fair to selfishly deny a person sex? No. It is not, people have a right to have sex and if their spouses totally or somewhat-totally deny them that, they have every right to sleep with other people. "
So if I or my wife denied the other some nookie, if I or she felt that I was "selfishly denying" them sex, then that gave the other carte blanche to go play away?
Isn't times like those exactly what porn was made for anyway? Are these people saying that they are too good for porn?
All I took from this article really was that if you wanted to read the AM data then go find a torrent of it and download the whole thing yourself. Instead of being lazy and relying on someone else, out of the goodness of their own hearts and not for any malicious reasons honest guv, to put the data into a new UI for them.
Um... Porn is nice I suppose. But it's not the same as actually having physical contact with another warm, willing human being, regardless of how good your imagination is. I think (and hope) most would agree with me on this. IMHO, sex is certainly not the most important thing in life, but it is part of being human, and having the occasional romp versus never having physical intimacy is kind of like living versus existing. Or eating cold leftovers vs. fresh food. In the immortal words of George Carlin (I think it was), "There are far worse things than giving someone an orgasm."
@Unicornpiss RE:"and having the occasional romp versus never having physical intimacy is kind of like living versus existing."
I do agree with you that sex is not the most important thing in life and that real touching physical intimacy in all its forms can be a wonderful thing. I disagree with your suggestion that life without sex is not really living but merely existing. That thought ranks alongside those who say much the same about having children; that those without children are living a life without purpose and, again, merely existing. I like sex and adore intimacy with others but find the idea of having children totally hideous, and have studiously avoided the little horrors my entire life. I do not consider myself to be merely existing, nor do I consider those who genuinely have no desire for others to be incapable of living a worthwhile life.
Don't underestimate or denigrate others simply because they aren't like you. I suspect that, really, you don't.
> I disagree with your suggestion that life without sex is not really living
I'm glad for your that your life is so perfect.
You've clearly never stood a 12th floor balcony contemplating whether to let go of the railing.
Unless you've starved you can't understand what it is like to be hungry.
I'm sorry. But if a lack of sex has you wanting to take your own life then your life must be pretty pathetic in the first place!
There are people out there who, either by their own choice or just circumstance, don't have sex until they have passed their teens and well into their adult lives. You don't see them committing suicide because they can't get any.
If your life is not worth living because you can't bust a nut (not sure what the female equivalent of that particular phrase would be) , then you need to re-evaluate your life.
But if a lack of sex has you wanting to take your own life then your life must be pretty pathetic in the first place!
Sex ain't just about bustin' a nut, and your comment is more judgmental trash next to the heap of moralfaggotry piling up on Ashley Madison users. People live and die according to their beliefs and circumstances. It's ez to hate on the depressed and suicidal, because they are different from you.
You sound like your name is on their AC and you are building your defense's for when the other half finds out.
Sex is actually all about bustin' a nut. Something "more" and you are talking about intimacy or Lovemaking if you prefer, which you are probably not going to find on a site like this. If someone is suicidal because they can't find love then they wouldn't be on a website for extra-marital affairs.
I ain't hating, but too often these days people rush into marriage or use it as a bandaid for their doomed relationship (or even worse get married purely because the girl is pregnant). Yes, granted sometimes situations come up that cause a rift, but a proper marriage built on trust, love, friendship and understanding... well that weathers most storms.
And if those people say "ohh poor me, I am in a loveless marriage, or boo hoo, my wife hasn't put out in weeks and so I need to go find some strange elsewhere", well then they are as pathetic as you are sounding right now.
Be a man, stand up for your mistakes. If you cheated then own that! If you are in a loveless marriage then leave! If you want to go play away because your other half doesn't tingle your dingle anymore, well either you work on it together (because chances are that they are as bored as you are), or you leave!
Anything less than you are just moaning about the very thing you refuse to change.
@ AC RE:"I'm glad for your that your life is so perfect"
Oh, but my life isn't so perfect. I've been lonely often and starved of what I crave which is companionship. What I am is lucky. Lucky that I managed to find someone who can tolerate a bit of an idiot like me long enough to find something worthwhile. Don't know if your post is real but if it is then I hope you don't jump off that balcony. You're still alive, you're not existing. Ashley Madison is a bit crap though.
This post has been deleted by its author
> "I hope you don't jump off that balcony."
Thank you, I didn't and that was number of years ago. I would describe a period of my life as existing rather than living. I hope that is starting to come to and end and that there is life as well as light at the end of the tunnel. There has always been love, there hasn't always be fulfilment.
> "Ashley Madison is a bit crap though."
I'd agree, certainly as an implementation it's proved to be crap. As a business they've proved to be less than honourable. As a concept? well adultery is as old as the hills it happened before the Internet and it will happen after AM. Don't blame AM for the sins of others. In some ways I approve of the idea of an environment which allows people who will commit adultery to do so in relative safety, except it turned out not to provide that safety. But presumably most people who met through the site were under no illusions about what they were doing and who they were seeing.
My history could well have involved something like AM many years ago. I've been married twice, my first wife wanted to have sex with others, well at least one other. I sat there and held her hand as she made the beast with the 2 backs with the object of her desire and I was happy for her, since I knew that in her heart of hearts that was what she wanted and I wanted her to be happy. It wasn't exciting.
Later the tables were turned and I ended up with a lover, but my wife seemed to like me being with others and it got to the stage where she would proposition women on my behalf, which is highly embarrassing, especially when she was pissed and their husbands were in ear shot. Eventually the inevitable happened and she encourage me to become involved with another women who I promptly fell in love with. Hence the divorce. Now this was years before the Internet left academia and became accessible to public. If that had been now I might well have been one of AM's customers, I wouldn't have been cheating because I would have been working within the bazaar rules of that relationship and my wife would have known and would have known each and every time I was out "playing away". If I'd have been "outed" it could have caused problems, who wants the details of their lust lives made public. That my wife privately somehow got off on my being promiscuous doesn't mean that she would want the world to know. I was always totally open about my status, but the female friends I had, some "with benefits" and some "platonic" wouldn't deserve to have their character dragged through the mud.
@ AC on the balcony
My saying Ashley Madison is crap is not meant as a moral, ethical, or any other kind of judgement. It was entirely aimed at the company itself and not what it represents or those that used it. Personally I tend to be monogamous but again that isn't a moral or ethical judgement either; Its just me. For anyone else then, whatever floats your boat, or lifts your skirt, or curls your toes; I luvs ya anyway...stay away from high places...
I left a relationship where I was allowed to be, in fact encouraged to be, promiscuous for one where I knew I would be expected to be monogamous. I made that choice.
So many of the comments about this AM fiasco have been vindictive, but many innocent people will end being hurt as well as many sad and lonely ones, plus no doubt a number of total rats. But on the whole it will be the innocents that get hurt most.
Take care, and yes I tend to stay away from high places.
> So if I or my wife denied the other some nookie, if I or she felt that I was "selfishly denying" them sex, then that gave the other carte blanche to go play away?
No, but if you are "selfishly denying" them a fundamental feature of married life then you should have the courage to ask your partner for a divorce because you have already decided to leave the marriage. Doing so without openly telling you partner is as bad, if not worse, than playing away behind their back.
"No, but if you are "selfishly denying" them a fundamental feature of married life then you should have the courage to ask your partner for a divorce because you have already decided to leave the marriage."
Do consider the idea that marriage might be a bit more complex than simply making whoopie - there are numerous other relational, financial and lifestyle facets to consider. These are the reasons gays want same sex marriage, they've already got sex down pretty good from what I've heard. In any event, whatever any couple does to solve (or create) a boinking conundrum is something I am happy to *not* know.
> Do consider the idea that marriage might be a bit more complex than simply making whoopie
Of course marriage is more complex than just having a physical relationship, but having a physical relationship is an intrinsic part of being married. If the marriage is not consummated then it can be annulled rather than going through a divorce.
For a marriage to work then the couple need to meet on so many different levels.
Why is sex is big issue?
Well why would you be upset with your spouse if they had sex with someone else when you would not be upset if they played, say, tennis, with them?
This society treats sex differently, we are not expected to have sex with someone other than our partner.
I have friends that I love but I don't have sex with. I have a spouse that I love and do have sex with. I love my parents and I love my kids, I sure as hell don't want to have a physical relationship with them.
There was an interesting article, I think in the Daily Fail, recently by a regular on R4's thought for today where she was saying that her and her husband (both clergy) had been asked at a dinner party why they'd married each other and they'd shocked the other people there by saying SEX, "We married each other so we could have sex together" they both believed that sex should only exist inside a marriage and so they could have all other aspects of a relationship without being married but they wanted to be intimate together, they wanted to make love to each other, they wanted sex, so they wanted to get married.
Whether you like it or not, the two, marriage and sex, are as intimately linked as a happily married couple should be.
"So if I or my wife denied the other some nookie, if I or she felt that I was "selfishly denying" them sex, then that gave the other carte blanche to go play away?"
Not at all, so long as you can selfishly deny her money.
Of course you can't, and in fact the state actively works to ensure she has more rights to it than you, so anything a man does in marriage is alright by me.
In fact, our best friends' next door neighbour but one, is on it, and he's probably (I say probably because someone in 4 houses either side of hers is on it, but aren't paying, and they're female, but they're linked in) jumping another woman I know in our estate (who I've known for years,) and I'm not going to tell anyone.
Nice comment northern coder, though I am quite convinced by the 'most female members were prostitutes and most of the rest were fake profiles' theory.
It has been run to death in other media outlets.
There must be a safe way to look at the database.
Not that I care, I sure would never sign up for a site with a logo suggestive of soft porn.
Many of the sleazy people who did sign up (subscriptions take money) did so with the intention of cheating.
Sure, a minority, as the article says, had the misfortune to be 'in lurve' with someone who hates sexual contact, the majority would have been just morons taken in by the imagery.
If, as is reported, almost all of the women outside the fake accounts were prostitutes, I think AM would be subject to more than a civil suit, AFAIK, laws against pimping remain on the books there.
> though I am quite convinced by the 'most female members were prostitutes and most of the rest were fake profiles' theory.
Half the interviews I've heard of victims of this outing have been female. I suspect that they are more likely to come forward, women in un-fulfilling relationships expect sympathy whereas men in the same boat expect castigation.
From my read it isn't a spoof or troll.
1. High profile events lead to poisoned torrents and scams everywhere. You may be a techie, but if you don't do your research and just grab 10 GB or hit shady domains, don't be surprised when it comes true.
2. There's no such thing as a free lunch, especially if you didn't do your research.
3. Also entirely true, although the theory that this anonymous journalist is covering his/her ass is a funny one. Given the tone, the Reg links, and the fact that it's published here, it's safe to assume it's a Reg hack who wrote this.
4. Bait/funny heading, but the point gets across. There were legitimate uses of the site, and users' stories have trickled out. This dump is a bit different in that some versions of the dataset are for simply checking hacked names and emails, sans credit card details.
"the respected expert and professional investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald" could be a bait line given some Reg disdain for him and "Snowden newsletter" The Intercept, despite the recent Reg-Intercept collab on Duncan Campbell and many recent examples of non-Snowden reporting. The two columns Greenwald has published about the Ashley Madison moralizing are worth a read (here's the other one).
That so many users rushed to call this a late April Fool's joke or fake/wrong is telling. It's clear from surveys that people really hate infidelity, but like most things people moralize about, the reactions are exaggerated, unnecessary, and damaging. Even those that cheated on their partner rather than get consent for using AM should be treated as victims of yet another data breach, rather than targets for online stoning.
From my read it isn't a spoof or troll.
Me too. It's actually rather an interesting piece of writing. Not sure if the intent is propagandist, or to provoke thought, or to tangle one's thought processes. Maybe all of them.
BTW there is a safe way to investigate any website or source. It's called a virtual machine, preferably running atop a real machine which you can also painlessly re-format should something manage to escape from its virtual jail. Oh yes, and to be triple-sure you run it on a network comprising just the one computer and its VM and a router connected to some ISP other than the one you use for your home/business. That last bit is almost certainly overly paranoid.
But I tend to share the sentiment, "don't look", in this case.
Fully paid up adulterer are we Mr "A Journalist Who Just Happened To Find This Interesting"?
"1. Your Computer Will Almost Certainly Get Infected With A Virus If You Do" gave me more of a giggle than the rest of the scaremongering and moralising... did you even know what site that shit was to be published on?
OK It's not 1st April.. so I give up. What's the joke? What have I missed?
I think if you read it as a joke from the beginning it is quite funny.
It is very much in the "Brass Eye" style (esp their anti-Paedophile episode) where it could be almost believable but starts getting more and more absurd (although probably everything said has been said individually in a 'serious' news context). If you are in on the joke it is funny, if you aren't you feel defrauded and think it isn't funny (a la Neil Fox)
The people who find it funny the most are the staff at the Register sniggerring at the outraged comments - that's the joke. It plays on the superiority that some IT observers feel over technically illiterate commentators when they talk about current affairs.
It's a spoof, but in it's own ham-fisted way it does contain a few truths.
Finding someone's details in the AM data does mean nothing, because the website was run by a bunch of amateurs that didn't verify addresses.
Looking up the AM data (and submitting your email address for a search) is generally a stupid idea. The website hosting the data isn't to be trusted any more than AM was.
90% of the moral posturing and justifications for this invasion of privacy are vomit inducing, self-righteous bullshit.
"cookies"? I missed that. It's important.
I was trying to guess the author.
I got to the end of page 1 without my falling asleep, so it's not Trevor Pott.
There was one massive clue that tells me it wasn't Andrew Orlowski.
I did consider Lewis Page, and Dom O'Connor, and Dabbsy.
The tendency to CAPITALIZE things the author thinks is important is a big clue I have yet to fully investigate.
But "cookies", in quotes? OK then, someone literate, but, not deep in the IT side of things that is this site's core interest. So ... no, I'm not going to reveal the name I have in mind.
Let me EXPLAIN: enjoy the reaction of all the people, who took it for straight advise at some point realized they were had, and THEN comes the funny part, aka "oh, the indignity!, said Thomas" - as witnessed in the comments. And, guess what else is funny? That people still don't get why their indignant comments are funny.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
We get it. You don't like Microsoft. But do you have to make such lame fucking comments on threads that have nothing to do with them as well as on threads that do, where we can avoid them because they are about Microsoft and sure as eggs is eggs they will contain lame fucking comments such as this? Have you nothing better to think about such as the fluff in your belly button? FFS! Now look what you made me do...
"Pregnancy" covers the whole process through childbirth and possible complications, and a few women find they don't like/want sex afterwards.
If you read the article again you will notice the main moral point was for consenting couples who wish to stay together for any of various reasons, but are not having sex for whatever reason(s) and one of them still wants to.
Enough. There are way too many people coming up with way too many sick sad sorry excuses to try to justify this.
Yes, relationships can be messy, and yes some people may prefer to have sex with others instead of formally splitting up. But, you know, affairs and polygamy existed before the Internet. If this is a consensual thing, why not try to pull at a bar, supermarket, whatever, as opposed to a website that appears to exist specifically to hook up people in affairs. This isn't a regular dating site, remember. Try to keep that in mind....along with the obvious moral of the story - Internet security. Oxymoron.
I admit it was me who may have used your details as test entries in the database, yours and a few other journalists at various times and using mixed payment methods. I may also have used emails similar to yours and those of others too, to enable test interactions that would closely simulate real world activity for the purpose of research.
Yours, not the author, paid by him, nor with direct interest in him remaining in paid employment.
The first three on the surface seemed (for some value of 'seemed') like legitimate reasons... the fourth seemed to be a rant. But then again, I don't care who's on it. I just know a lot of folks justly or injustly are going to get burnt and without the various "helpful" sites like Trustify or the nearest spamming miscreant doing whatever shiite they might try.
Most people will not get the torrent and try to load it in to a database themselves. They will go to one of many scam sites set up to offer such a service and you can bet your bottom dollar that most of them are in it for the money (yours) by any means possible.
The article is really aimed at the unwashed masses using partially patched Windows boxes with Flash installed on auto-play, not El Reg readers who are likely to have somewhat hardened machines.
Apparently I am the only one to find this entertaining.
More of a weekend article, perhaps, but some of the hypocritical justifications sounded sadly true to life. The warnings about virus infections and email address harvesting are not too far fetched, either.
Oh, and as it happens I know both the author and his partner and am happy to realise that I am about to receive a totally unsolicited long term loan offer to participate (in a passive way) in the ongoing research project. Euros preferred unless printed in Greece.
I didn't really find it very funny. If that was the intention, then I think it was just a bit too subtle to succeed. Worse than that, I think it is open to misinterpretation due to the fact that many people scan articles rather than read them (especially when longer than one web page).
If it was intended to also get a serious point across, then I think the sweeping statement that looking at AM data is worse than adultery missed out on one critical exception. Some people do get involved in relationships in which one partner is being unfaithful and the other member just wants to know the truth. Is the search of truth then also worse than becoming an AM member? I think not.
Anyway, I'm not going to bother searching the data. I get enough information just by reading the commentary around the whole affair (if you will excuse the rather bad pun).
"A bit too subtle to succeed" - depends on your criteria for "success", obviously. I thought it succeeded pretty well.
"Open to misinterpretation because people can't be bothered to read it properly (but can still take time out to log in and post half-arsed judgmental comments about it)" really says more about those readers than the writer.
Article can't be a joke as the first bits are right - for the majority of non-IT literate people. On El reg, however, it just comes across as school boyish and shrill.
Most people should avoid AM sites like the plague as they will be ID harvesters or malware ridden. Most El reg readers will know where to go for this kind of material with low risk.
The moralising and finger-pointing is poor.
This article would be perfect for the Daily Fail.
And we all laughed loud at it.
It's also funny how digging into Sony and Hacking Team dumps - just to name the two last big ones - was OK, while into AM is not OK.... why, because there are many journalists also? And journalists performing 'researches' with their own identifiable data???
Or this is a joke, or this is a desperate attempt at damage control.- and a ugly one.
Reading it accurately it does indeed look a joke. The attempt to show that actually only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of site users are actually cheater, that almost all credit cards number were stolen ones (why would crooks waste them this way?), that all the cheaters had a very good reason and partner permission, especially that unforeseen illness called 'pregnancy' as a valid excuse ('really, I didn't know sex lead to pregnancy').
And everybody of course was very, very careful about sexually transmitted diseases, and not having children with their occasional partner...
And the rant about the military, but still noticing their 'publicly sworn oath' - and, after all, a marriage is too a publicly sworn oath you do because you choose it.
Also, that identifying an hypocritical politician is good (especially if it raises the journo notoriety, status and pay), while identifying your hypocritical partner is not.
And really, the closing lines about the moral standard asserting that wanting to know if your partner cheated you is worse than actually cheating. That's the real true old moral standard, when women had to accept silently their partner cheats, violence and so on... because as long as everything was 'secret' it was OK.
There's a lot of hype about the AM spew; nothing about the internet being a cesspool of predators is news to anyone. But we should take note of yet more proof that pay dating/meetup/affair sites are a wast of money because THEY HAVE NO WOMEN USERS SEEKING MEN! Ashley Madison's list indicates at most 14% women - less than 10% in most countries - and once you subtract the prostitutes and gold-diggers, there's nothing to be had for your hard currency.
The truism remains: Anyone who says they'll get you love (or laid) for cash is either a lying crook or a pimp or whore.
ANYONYMOUS COWARD WHO NEVER PAID FOR ANYTHING
Well, that's the longest troll I've ever seen, TWO pages? that must be a record even for the Reg.
Went too far with this bit though, "the brave, righteous – and in many cases only tangentially or professionally involved – people identifiable in the AM data"
Good effort though even if it did read like something Stephen Fry would have written.
... how much harder "A Journalist Who Just Happened To Find This Interesting" could possibly back-peddle faster.
Seriously, dude/tte, you could have stood on roof roof & yelled "I'm tired of my spouse!" at the top of your lungs. Would have been simpler and faster, and none of your colleagues would have been any the wiser.
Nice one. You should have just used Bong's byline.
"If you do this you'll get a virus and your name will be leaked and and and..."
The last one is hilarious. British readers will remember the MPs expenses scandal, when the Daily Telegraph bought a stolen database with all their expenses in, and mined it, and published it. I don't recall a huge outcry along the lines of "but it's stolen data, we have no right to look at it, anyone who looks at it is evil think of their poor children being bullied at school what about the suicide risks?" We read it, examined it, and judged people based on how they appeared in it.
Or the Snowden files. Nobody is disputing that the owners of those would rather you didn't know what was in them.
Or the BNP leak. Loads of people searched through that for friends and colleagues. And it's hard to argue that many people on that list would rather not have it broadcast far and wide.
So this is far from the first major embarrassing data leak. So why treat this one differently? Why the sudden outbreak of "this is awful, those awful awful hackers. How dare they?" Is it that this is the first leak which has "normal" people's details in? You know, normal people. People who like to snoop on others, but keep their own details private. Anonymous Coward-type people.
The MP expenses scandal was about those expenses claimed from public money - not their personal (private) spending of their own money.
The AM data is data of a purely personal and private nature (although I suppose those using work email addresses might have clouded the personal-vs-public issue somewhat; but only for their employer, not for anyone else).
admit it, you're upset because you fell for it (I did), so you're trying to cover your upsetness by shifting the angle (rubbish joke). Yeah, I know we all do it, it's human, etc. But - anonymously - it is funny too (and I see a lot of it in the comments under this piece :)
3. The Mere Fact That Someone's Details Are In The Ashley Madison Data Means Absolutely Nothing At All
Is disingenuous to the extreme. You use the phrase "the fact of the matter". Are you perhaps a politician, when you're not writing anonymous opinion pieces? I'd be delighted to hear you present the "facts", perhaps a quantitative breakdown of:
a) signups from people other than the account holder
b) signups from the account holder, but out of curiosity with no intention to have an affair
c) signups from the account holder, with an intention to have an affair
No? Then you don't have the facts needed to make this assertion, and claiming you do is an instant bullshit alarm bell.
My belief is that analysing the payment data will reveal that a high proportion of accounts have had money spent on them. Ashley Madison weren't conjuring $100 million dollars operating profit out of thin air. And when Impact Team leaks the rest of the database, we'll be able to count accounts that have had messages sent from them. This will demonstrate a large membership within the b and c cohort above.
The "someone else must have signed me up, using my correct mothers maiden name, from a computer inside my employer's building, but it WASN'T ME I SWEAR" defence is as laughable as it sounds.
Yeah, the whole hyperbole around the hack leaves me somewhat bemused: people commit adultery. I thought the stats on adultery in the general population were pretty well established.
The whole hand-wringing about how the dump will destroy marriages and lives needs a proper Paedogeddon-style take down. There will be embarrassment and possibly the odd divorce (betraying someone's trust does tend to have consequences) but life will go on.
Extremely well done!
Swinging between hysterically funny innuendo and seriously serious moralizing so quickly I cannot tell if the article is a spoof or real.
But I agree with every single point made.
What two consenting adults get up to is nobody's business but theirs (and their "life partner").
Sorry, hackers. This time you fucked up. Maybe if you think for a bit you can figure out why.
I haven't been reading the Reg for the last five or ten years for the jokes. I come here for tech news. I know it probably makes me sound like a boring bastard, but there are plenty of websites with rubbish content already. Please don't turn the Register into another of those.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
I signed up and browsed around a few years ago, and I remember a few posts where women said their spouse was incapacitated and encouraged them to use AM -- but otherwise the marriage was fine.
This seems like a legitimate use that may no longer be available, unfortunately.
Sure, cheaters might be bad. But on principal, is it okay to look at people's private information? I don't think so.
Data leaks are becoming more and more common. Maybe you feel like it's okay for people to go through AshleyMadison or HackingTeam information because they morally don't sit well with you.
But what will you do when a more mild leak happens? No malware, no infidelity. Will you still support looking through those people's information? I find it hypocritical that people on this site (both commenters and writers) support privacy and security... but only when it suits them.
First, people were okay with going after terrorists. Now people are okay with going after cheaters. What next? Will you be okay with reading other people's leaked medical records? Will you be okay with doxxing people for having opinions you disagree with? Will you go through someone's living expenses to see what they buy? Will you read other people's email if their email service gets compromised? Will you view all of their cloud photos and videos? Will you read their digital journal documents? Will you control their smart fridges and Jeeps?
These things might all be available in the future, thanks to universally poor security practices and people seeming to think they're justified in searching through other people's personal data, even if it's obtained illegitimately.
People might start with supposedly serious wrongdoings but eventually we'll see people justify invading other people's privacy for much less significant things. This pro-doxx and witch-hunt mentality really disturbs me. If you want privacy for yourself, you need to support privacy for other people too.
The excuse-making for prying into people's personal lives really makes me worry what the future is going to be like. If you support the AshleyMadison and HackingTeam leaks, you're really no better than the NSA.
This post has been deleted by its author
Go through the dump to check if its got my details? Noooo, I imagine 99% of the people here running sql queries are using their co-workers details so they can take the p*ss out of them at the pub mercilessly for a few months for being so dumb as to fall for it and in finest bofh style, secretly hoping to find the CEO or something on there. Be almost as good as pictures of them and flossie the sheep come annual review time.
Sadly the anon box means I can't use the joke icon... Nor the nuclear bomb one :D
With apologies to BOFH#1
I hear the phone drop and the sound of running feet - he's obviously going to try and get an alibi by being at the Dean's office. I look up his username and find his department. I ring the Dean's secretary.
"Hello?" she answers.
"HI, SIMON, B.O.F.H HERE, LISTEN, WHEN THAT GUY COMES RUNNING INTO YOUR OFFICE IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS, CAN YOU GIVE HIM A MESSAGE?"
"I think so..." she says,
"TELL HIM HE CAN RUN, BUT HE CAN'T HIDE.'"
"AND DON'T FORGET NOW, I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT THAT RECORD IN THE ASHLEY MADISON DUMP BEARING YOUR MOBILE NUMBER..."
She sobs her assent and I hang up. And the worst thing is, I was just guessing about the Ashley Madison thing. I grab a quick copy from a torrent, it might make for some good late-night reading.
Just wait a little longer and the names will be posted in plain text somewhere.
These people have screwed up and deserve what they get and since we're not
talking average middle class joe here everyone is all about protecting their marriages and so on.....
Too bad. Time to pay the piper.
Come on, are you telling me that some of you (MOST of you) believe this article is serious?? :O) It's an obvious tongue in cheek joke meant to satirize all the cheating spouses who will be desperately trying to dissuade their mates from seeking out the data and/or making up excuses for their naughty behavior! In doing so it makes light of a very serious, dour situation and I for one think the comic relief was needed! Like all good comedy there is a grain of truth in the joke and I guess this is why it fooled some of you. But would a serious author be so blatantly defensive, even going so far as to describe himself in the title as "one who has researched this purely for work reasons”? And the exaggerations here! To suggest that one’s computer will become infected with a nasty virus simply by clicking through to a website pokes fun at the computer illiterate spouse who might have enlisted the help of his/her more computer literate mate to see the ALM data (which I assume is the “purpose” of this article.) If this is you, let me make this very clear: unless you install a program or app on your computer you will not become infected with a virus. This means you should not give any permissions by clicking “yes” on any little boxes that pop up. Unless you are an expert, always use a good firewall and antivirus, and keep it up to date!
Anyway, I did mean to get off on a tangent here. This is satire. I imagined it as a technically savvy cheater trying to frighten his/her less nerdy partner away from seeking out the data. Re-read it as such and you’ll get a good laugh! Have a great day! :)
It was an excellent classical troll - enough good sense in among the special pleading to fool quite a lot of people into taking issue. I used to work with a guy who did this on the Daily Mail website and he once got over a thousand upvotes for a little piece taking subtle piss out of the Mail POV - a kind of idiot tax.
As it becomes more and more apparent that it was really a scam site - fake women, few real ones who weren't escorts, relying on the men not admitting their lack of success or demanding money back for fear of public exposure - it seems to me that what we are really learning is that "social media" has an extremely sleazy underside, and that we don't know how far up the sleaze goes. A similar data dump of Facebook exec emails - would that be equally informative? Perhaps nobody is brave enough to risk living in either Russia or a broom cupboard in an embassy, as Avid Media is just some Canadian outfit but Facebook is now part of the MIC.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care if my mate was "looking" for an affair or "had" an affair. It is all the same to me. I leave! This article really stretches to find reasons NOT to check the data. "Your Computer Will Almost Certainly Get Infected With A Virus If You Do." (LOLOL) I don't really know of one of the sites that has uploaded spyware or a virus.... such hogwash.
If you are curious, check the damned list. If you don't have the list, you can download it or wait for someone to publish a list of your state. Now the data that the hackers uploaded is still on the web, so you can still download it. Google how to do this. Then you need a special program to decompress it called 7-zip (these aren't like the usual zipped files on your computer). After that you, if I have read the reports correctly, one can read all the credit card lists (there isn't any credit card info from what is reported - just excel spreadsheets with names, emails, and addresses) it is just the list of MEN that had paid registrations (Women got free accounts). (Isnt that discrimination...???) The email lists on the rest of the data are apparently in an SQL database. Good luck with that if you aren't a SQL user......
So you can wait for the lists to become public to see all the women and men that had accounts... or you can download the credit card transactions files torrent. The original files have been downloaded by numerous people and are reportedly clean.
I typically don't read comments, but this is one of the few exceptions. The article is funny, as is the outrage to this information being made public. It is also sad, as it's showing sheer ignorance of how the internet works.
Two things that immediately sprang to mind when I first read about this.
1. You've made your bed, now lie in it. (pun thoroughly intended)
2. The truth will out.
It doesn't take the internet for these to be true, this AM episode has just brought things forward a little bit for some people.
It's funny how people are basically suggesting by proxy and slippery slope tunnel thinking, that being in the AM data base means your guilty, WITHOUT ANY PROOF, commentards are suggesting over and over again that THEY have the foresight and intelligence to make the judgement of others that they are guilty.
And from this completely unfounded assumption that anybody is guilty at all, they go on a slippery slope of moralizing judgment and how anybody in that database has brought what ever is coming on to them self.
So if some news item comes up next week that Saudi Arabia has executed the first AM user because of Homosexuality, will you all go to the reg and cheer and clap ?
"I would have asked my spouse to divorce, bla bla bla, and if others do not live or do exactly as I do, to hell with them, all privacy can and will be invaded, put them in jail, fire them and make them ,lose their job, as my moral compass is better then yours"
Or similar crap is uttered, all suggesting that what ever anybody on the AM database is going to experience, is brought all on to them self.
I am not in this database and I didn't even have to go and look, but it amazes me how most commentards seem to shrug at this violation of privacy, and almost nobody seems to care about the victims who's life is being ruined, as they are outed as lesser human beings by the moralistic fucktards, who go everyday to their office to steal another pile of paper for their home printer.
This article is hilarious. The writer is making vast assumptions of the user base and ALSO their spouses. If I were a betting man, I would be the writer is either on the list of users and trying (desperately, poorly) to sway readers to not care about the data, OR it's a giant joke. No self respecting writer would publish garbage like this.
"The huge majority of such AM users had been clearly and explicitly offered free permission by their spouses or partners to have sex outside the relationship."
I'd love to see the research details on that little tidbit. Must be an AMAZING writer to be able to claim "HUGE MAJORITY" of 37 million users just a couple weeks after breach. Not to mention, no self respecting "writer"/"journalist" would need to use an adjective to describe a noun so definitively. Unless they're were absolutely DESPERATE to convince users that it's A-Ok. I'm sure this article's a joke...please...tell me it's a joke...
Nice article, except that's its central theme is morality, assumes all site users are good people doing nothing wrong registering/interacting with a site aimed at committing immoral deeds & includes the sentence, "So even the tiny minority of AM users who actually have had affairs behind their partners' backs are GOOD people who have done NOTHING wrong." Nice CAPS-we don't believe u. They may be good people, I'm not convinced your name being on the list = ur a bad person, tho It's sketchy @the least, but isn't a great determiner of character here, No that's relative to the individual & their situation, people aren't lost on that. No, the idea IS EXACTLY THIS- your name is on the list bc YES U PROBABLY DID OR CONSIDERED DOING SOMETHING WRONG. (YAY IF U DIDNT GO THRU WITH IT, talk to ur partner about it & have a healing moment, they'll believe u if your being genuine, and if they don't forgive u, well that isn't a morality issue it's a personal preference, what ur allowed to have re: YOUR relationships, boundaries exist, are relative & shouldn't be crossed if u intend to stay in the relshp. IT IS, by its very nature, a vehicle to commit a wrong-adultery. This is established by the very site + it's ads + slogan + overall reason for the leak. unless indicated by their profile or by the person that it was in fact a joint operation of Spouses, yes they have done something wrong. Nice use of caps there. but please, keep telling yourself that over and over, writing A "journalism" article on why basically the entire population & generations of people before us have been confusing the age old concept of morality. Though u did mention one half-fair thing- that the people who look the stuff up have a part in the immorality as well-except not to the extent u mentioned-as not everyone is being is trying to blow whistles on good honest people but their own partner, not something u exactly want to share with the world or boast ab. someone purely looking for answers to their lie of a union bc their partner is incapable emitting truth and stuck in a bad situation may need that ray of truth to finally leave> find Some1 worthy of their love & care who takes promises seriously. BUT if ur an a.hole who's sole purpose is outing any1 who's situation is unknown to u, then yeah that's wrong and 2 don't make a right, it's as basic and simple as motive. TRUE Motive determines wrong, & nothing pure motivates a user to navigate acheating site. But to hold the position in an article including CAPS Emphasis defending this BS, I'd be skeptical of you. A journalist, like you, should know better than to sign up w real names, etc for "research" -ESP if you have a partner. Why would not use a pseudonym for such a seedy project? what kind of research, journalistically, can be done on an extramarital site? Bc if u are t going thru with the process, why would u write some review, article on what essentially is an incomplete experience? What kind of research BEFORE THE LEAK would even be helpful if it didn't cover the affair, the whole experience promised by the site? How's an article ab this site even interesting to people if it doesn't cover the part that's the whole point of registering anyway? Last I realized, journalists are people too, like everyone else-and that title doesn't simply exclude them from criticism, you should have used a pseudonym.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020