14 ms·

This is a great comment, Thomas. I had an argument with my girlfriend about this. No matter what reasoning I used, no matter what I said, she could not agree t

by dsacco 11y ago

This is a great comment, Thomas. I had an argument with my girlfriend about this. No matter what reasoning I used, no matter what I said, she could not agree that it was wrong that Ashley Madison (A.M.) was hacked. Her position was that marital infidelity is such a pubishable offense that the participants on A.M. deserve to be publicly outed. In her view, it was not even up for debate. She felt so powerfully about infidelity that she didn't care. My girlfriend is not a luddite, but she's also not an engineer. She isn't a programmer, doesn't work in tech, and is not particularly invested in ethical conversations about privacy. When I told her that hacking and outing people on a website because they do something you disagree with is playing God, she didn't seem to be phased at all. It was worth it. That this line of thinking could be used for things she did not agree with was not something I could convince her of. She simply values, in a somewhat totalitarian way, the justice inflicted on these people beyond her own right to privacy (or theirs). My point here is that you can't convince someone this is unethical behavior if they are emotionally invested in it. I think it's disgusting that this is making the rounds on Twitter. But I don't think you could ever convince people they are being hypocritical. They simply enjoy having something to dislike, especially if it fits in their ideological conception of the world. I think this is a strong parallel to the privacy violations with regards to the NSA. You can't convince people that it's wrong if they have elevated their own ethical crusade beyond their right to something such as privacy. Sorry to hijack this comment with NSA.

tptacek 11y ago
It's like, you know who has a stronger opinion about wrongdoing than people who dislike infidelity? The people who picket abortion clinics. Also: there's a neat parallel to the NSA here, in that a substantial portion of the users registered for A.M. probably haven't been unfaithful, and are getting "dragnetted" up with the people who have, because who's going to take the time to sort that out?
- daemin 11y ago
  Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? I'm sure more than a few would have joined, while pretending to be in one, and subsequently have started a relationship.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? No, it's only marketed/targeted towards that demo.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    I always thought it would fun to join when I was single. Then I could be accused of being a dishonest immoral monster when my hookups discovered I wasn't really married.
  - ZoFreX 11y ago
    According to this poster: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_stoned_to_death_for_gay_sex_gay_man/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_ston... there is not a requirement to be in a relationship to use the site. And now he might die, because of the leak.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >And now he might die, because of the leak. Isn't this akin to blaming Snowden/Manning for diplomatic fallout instead of blaming those who were engaging in the wrongful practices that led to the fallout.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - smtddr 11y ago
        FYI, for others reading this comment: The wrongful practice implied here is the stoning, not being gay. Took me awhile to figure that out. I almost went on a rant.
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
tedunangst 11y ago
We are never the infidels. Only "they" can be infidels.
- dang 11y ago
  Is there a word for things that only other people can be? The one that always comes to mind is "tourist".
  - HSO 11y ago
    Only they: terrorists Only you: freedom fighter, liberator Only they: imperialists Only you: protector Only they: baby killers Only you: collateral damage I'm sure George Carlin could come up with more expensive shots… Man, I miss him.
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      From Lord of War: "Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters."
  - SilasX 11y ago
    I've said "I'm a tourist" before.
  - mootothemax 11y ago
    Is there a word for things that only other people can be? Kinda along similar lines: expats vs. immigrants. "Oh no, Paul and Iza are expats. Not at all like those job-stealing immigrants who moved in next door..." (aside: does wrong fit your original question?)
    - Hhefferman1989 11y ago
      This isn't a valid example. "Expat" is a very specifically defined term in the vernacular of people that live outside of their home countries: it means a person that moved to another country for a specific job (usually because they were recruited into that job). Expat is a sub-class of immigrant; not all immigrants are expats, but all expats are immigrants. Also, despite what people that make this argument try to claim, many self-identifying and generally accepted "Expats" are not white and / or come from non-Western countries.
anotherangrydev 11y ago
Tell her that two wrongs never make a right.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
- bilalasif1900 11y ago
  Yep, Two wrongs never make a right. i agree with you.
camillomiller 11y ago
The elevation of monogamy and closed relationships as the God-given natural status of a couple is the source of too many problems. Same for not living our own sexuality in the open. By acting like this (that is: like you are supposed to) you are constantly prone to blackmail. If you happen to have a wife that is entitled in her social-induced belief that even thinking about other women is good ground for the termination of a marriage, then external forces will have a great power over you. If you live with a person that accepts external affairs, sex with other people and who is ok with your true sexuality (e.g. If you're bisexual or happen to like transgenders) you will always have someone on your side no matter what, and your relationship to that person can't be menaced by any eventual disclosure. Social stigma might still have a leverage on you, but if you're open with your intimate circle of friends and business acquaintances it would be virtually impossible to use a sex-related scandal against you. The Ashley Madison leak is interesting because of this, too. It's a breakthrough because it exposes behaviors that society still considers immoral and punishable. People that left behind this archaic way of thinking and built their life together with someone that shares more open sexual values are totally immune to this scandal. This is certainly something that would have tickled Sir Bertrand Russell's mind.
- zamalek 11y ago
  > God-given natural status The "God reasoning" isn't the only reasoning. Just like polygamy is a choice, so is monogamy. It's a sexual choice. What is wrong is that people can't be open about that choice. People should be able to be open and honest about being polygamous or monogamous with their partner - yes, that might sometimes result in the relationship ending; but there's a good chance where there is a disagreement it would have ended with heartbreak further down the line anyway. This should occur long before marriage is ever on the table, or even, before a relationship is on the table. In Africa it's important for people to know their AIDS status and be honest about it; I wish we could do the same thing with relationship preferences. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have only one partner, there is also nothing wrong with wanting to have many partners. Both approaches to relationships have their pros and cons. Either way, debate about polygamy vs. monogamy in this case-scenario is completely irrelevant. Someone was hacked, privacy was violated (it doesn't matter what privacy) and that is the end of that. There's no reason to attach another argument to the discussion because the hack was an outright violation in the first place.
varjag 11y ago
Speaking of NSA, do you think Snowden's revelations were unethical or misguided?
- simoncion 11y ago
  No.
  - tertius 11y ago
    That was supposed to be rhetorical.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      You don't appear to be varjag. :)
- rnovak 11y ago
  If it had resulted in even a single death, then yes, it would have been negligent of him to release it. But from what I understand, after watching his talks, was that was THE REASON he gave the docs to journalists, so they could evaluate the downsides of releasing each doc. Unethical, absolutely. He breached his employment contract, and exceeded access to systems under the pretense that he was given access to them. Since you asked...
mtgx 11y ago
It's awful, but I also can't help but be happy that this and other hacks like the Fappening will once again make people realize that privacy does matter, and everyone has "something to hide". Law enforcement is having it too easy with the "terrorists can't have safe spaces to communicate" and "think of the children" messages - but what about "think of the adults"? At least this way, people will think twice about supporting mass dragnets or having their data stored unencrypted.
ddingus 11y ago
I'm glad you did. Both your comment and the parent you were responding to were lucid and well worth the read.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Presumably she would be fine with a case where Man uses his contacts to find his wife (who left him) via a mate in the phone company? This is an actual case used at British Telecom to emphasize how you should NEVER abuse your access privs. The sobering end of the story he killed her.
joering2 11y ago
> Her position was that marital infidelity is such a pubishable offense that the participants on A.M. deserve to be publicly outed. In her view, it was not even up for debate. She felt so powerfully about infidelity that she didn't care. Congrats! Your girlfriend is a human-being. And if she's not an IT person, she won't see this case same way you do. To her this case is like a bulk caught of (mostly) vast number of men caught cheating - and heavily exposed! I don't see nothing wrong with your gf approach. After all, millions of "law abiding" citizens are in jail because law was on their side, but disgusted jury found them guilty anyways. And I say as long as we live in a society and we want to keep living in rather morally healthy society, it's a good thing.
bdavisx 11y ago
I wonder how she would feel if she was addicted to narcotics, went to NarcAnon and then had her name published when someone leaked/hacked their database because "those people shouldn't have done drugs in the first place". Or replace NA with AA.
- dmd 11y ago
  I can tell you exactly what a person like that's response would be: "I would never do drugs."
  - dsacco 11y ago
    "I don't mind if the government can read my emails, I have nothing to hide."
- probably_wrong 11y ago
  I think there's a small but important difference. The hack would be closer to someone revealing the list of customers of whoever gave her the narcotics. They did not reveal the identity of those trying to fix their issues, like AA/NA would be. Or, to put it the other way around, they revealed the database of the cheating site, not the patient list of the marriage counselor.
rimantas 11y ago
What is her opinion about stoning people to death for adultery? Because for some involved, I imagine, it would be more desireable outcome than the one they will be facing now.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I think there are three questions here. Is it legal. Is it moral. Should it be legal. The last is quite complex and I won't get to it here because of the vast differences in moral theories as to what should and should not be legal. As to the first, is it legal? Hacking isn't. The end. But the middle question is interesting, and I dare say that many people have views such as my own, where morality is not dependent on legality but on morality. And I would also dare to say that most people do not have an issue exposing people who are using websites to commit very immoral actions. So the question becomes one of if the action of cheating is immoral enough to cross this threshold. That question is a really deep moral one and you probably have as much ability to change as most any deeply held moral view. In short, most everyone agrees the right to privacy has limits based on extremely immoral actions. The difference is only in what counts as immoral enough, which is far less a distinction than 'right to privacy means hacking is wrong'.
- the_af 11y ago
  I think you have the right approach, but infidelity is not "strongly immoral" in the sense that it entitles you to publicly humiliate people you aren't in any way related to. It's a private matter between two (or actually, more) people. Your spouse has the right to tell you what you did is "strongly immoral", but Joe Public doesn't. I have zero respect for someone from the public who thinks their moral outrage entitles them to shame someone else for who they have sex with. "Strongly immoral" which belongs in the public sphere is more like human trafficking, murder, corruption in public office, etc.
  - joaq 11y ago
    "It's a private matter between two (or actually, more) people." Well, given that they're keeping their partner in the dark in the first place I don't see anything wrong with exposing the cheating scum.
    - the_af 11y ago
      That's a private matter between the people directly involved. Maybe their partner would also be humiliated by the exposure of their private affairs (I know I would), in which case it makes things even worse.
sneak 11y ago
Show her these: https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988534546796546 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988534546796546 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988845483126785 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988845483126785 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633989126639849474 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633989126639849474
animefan 11y ago
I'm think disagreement is not about privacy per se, but rather the absolute moral correctness of our legal principals. E.g. other people in this article have commented that people who have affairs deserve to be punched in the face (which is also illegal). I think engineers tend to place higher values in legal principals, because (a) we tend to prefer rule based solutions and (b) the tendency to allow exceptions to the law also results in school bullying, which nerds have a greater experience with.
- the_af 11y ago
  People who have affairs arguably deserve to be punched in the face by their spouses (figuratively speaking; I don't advocate actual violence), not by Joe Public.
erroneousfunk 11y ago
What about those who were on the site with the consent of their partner (swingers, poly, etc)? People who were single and on the site looking for a short-term fling? People just there out of curiosity, or signed up impulsively one night and deleted ("deleted") their account the next day? I would guess the number of married people who signed up, contacted someone, and had an affair through the site are actually in the minority (given the typical funnels for this sort of site, and all the hidden fees involved) There are going to be a lot of very embarrassed people who committed no adultery.
FilterSweep 11y ago
Try explaining to her about the case of some gay men in the middle east using the website discreetly who run the risk of death after this leak: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10084651 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10084651 (citing a reddit post). And, if you are comfortable putting her in a precarious position, you should ask her if she honestly knows of any of her girlfriends who have cheated before. Or, more simply, if any of her girlfriends are not single and have a Tinder account. I've noticed the "shoe on the other foot" has silenced many of the Twitter camp.
- hitekker 11y ago
  For me there are only two honest responses: A) "I can understand that vigilantism of this kind can hurt innocent people is therefore wrong" B)"if needed, the innocent should suffer so that those who I dislike are ruined". The latter position can be dressed up in all kinds of fancy words "bad people must be brought to justice no matter what". Stripped down to its core, however, and barring the exceptional circumstances, I would say that the desire for street-justice is pretty much evil. So far as I can tell, the rationale for position B is full throttled emotion: "I [want to] hurt the people I don't like and I [want to] kill the people I hate. Doing that makes me feel good, so it is good." Needless to say, I stay as far away from those who subscribe to position B, as humanly possible.
vasilipupkin 11y ago
Well, one way to explain this to your girlfriend is that it is a crime to steal information, even if you are stealing it from people you don't like
- tptacek 11y ago
  Lots of people don't care about that crime. Look at this thread!
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    understood. They should care because people who go around stealing information will eventually steal their information as well.
balls187 11y ago
Putting aside her feelings of infidelity, and talk about it from the perspective of the spouse that is being cheated on. Perhaps the people who is having the affair should be outed, but what about their spouse? Shouldn't the pain of the extra marital affair be more than enough? Now you have to add in public shame as well?
FireBeyond 11y ago
One comment you could make - is she pro-life/choice? (You don't have to answer to us). Would she feel the same if she was pro-choice and Planned Parenthood's databases were compromised by religious hackers? (I know that termination is only a small percentage of what they do).
Kalium 11y ago
It's a common thought patterns. People have rights, but an arbitrarily selected set of moral principles override those rights. It's no different from the people who support "Free Speech, except for hate speech". Or privacy, except when the person whose privacy is invaded is a racist piece of shit who doesn't deserve privacy because invading his privacy revealed him to be a racist piece of shit.
danvideo 11y ago
I think your explanation about why the twitter crusade feels so despicable is right on, dsacco and Thomas. Yet I'm struggling with why I (and much of the tech community) was OK and frankly downright gleeful at publicizing the Hacking Team hack - their data was exposed illegally and were engaged in immoral behavior re: working with various abusive governments (and had previously denied these facts). If I'm OK with people losing their right to privacy when they violate my moral sense, then am I much better...?
- zeendo 11y ago
  Umm. Shit. If you come up with a resolution to the cognitive dissonance you just exposed then please let me know.
Tloewald 11y ago
> When I told her that hacking and outing people on a website because they do something you disagree with is playing God, she didn't seem to be phased at all. I think she might be fazed by your telling her what is and isn't playing God. > you can't convince someone this is unethical behavior if they are emotionally invested in it. It would be unethical for A.M. to give out this data. It is almost certainly illegal for a hacker to do so, and you can argue that it's immoral, but it's not clear how it's unethical. Since the hackers did not make monetary demands (or did they) they seem to be operating according to their own code of conduct. I'd say the most clearly wrong thing about this is disclosing CC details. The rest of it comes down to public shaming, and your girlfriend is simply taking the position (I believe) most women (I believe) take that cheaters deserve to be shamed. Now, as to the CC details thing, surely it's the CC vendors who are the most unethical. Their entire system is hopelessly insecure and yet they persist in using it rather than adopting a more secure system (which they could certainly afford to do).
adamconroy 11y ago
Some people simply lack the capability to challenge their own opinions and beliefs. I find it very unattractive. On the other hand other people like myself are too objective and open minded, and as a result never form a strong opinion on anything, which is probably equally unattractive.

by dsacco 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

It's like, you know who has a stronger opinion about wrongdoing than people who dislike infidelity? The people who picket abortion clinics. Also: there's a neat parallel to the NSA here, in that a substantial portion of the users registered for A.M. probably haven't been unfaithful, and are getting "dragnetted" up with the people who have, because who's going to take the time to sort that out?

daemin 11y ago
Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? I'm sure more than a few would have joined, while pretending to be in one, and subsequently have started a relationship.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? No, it's only marketed/targeted towards that demo.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  I always thought it would fun to join when I was single. Then I could be accused of being a dishonest immoral monster when my hookups discovered I wasn't really married.
- ZoFreX 11y ago
  According to this poster: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_stoned_to_death_for_gay_sex_gay_man/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_ston... there is not a requirement to be in a relationship to use the site. And now he might die, because of the leak.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >And now he might die, because of the leak. Isn't this akin to blaming Snowden/Manning for diplomatic fallout instead of blaming those who were engaging in the wrongful practices that led to the fallout.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - smtddr 11y ago
      FYI, for others reading this comment: The wrongful practice implied here is the stoning, not being gay. Took me awhile to figure that out. I almost went on a rant.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

tedunangst 11y ago

We are never the infidels. Only "they" can be infidels.

dang 11y ago
Is there a word for things that only other people can be? The one that always comes to mind is "tourist".
- HSO 11y ago
  Only they: terrorists Only you: freedom fighter, liberator Only they: imperialists Only you: protector Only they: baby killers Only you: collateral damage I'm sure George Carlin could come up with more expensive shots… Man, I miss him.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    From Lord of War: "Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters."
- SilasX 11y ago
  I've said "I'm a tourist" before.
- mootothemax 11y ago
  Is there a word for things that only other people can be? Kinda along similar lines: expats vs. immigrants. "Oh no, Paul and Iza are expats. Not at all like those job-stealing immigrants who moved in next door..." (aside: does wrong fit your original question?)
  - Hhefferman1989 11y ago
    This isn't a valid example. "Expat" is a very specifically defined term in the vernacular of people that live outside of their home countries: it means a person that moved to another country for a specific job (usually because they were recruited into that job). Expat is a sub-class of immigrant; not all immigrants are expats, but all expats are immigrants. Also, despite what people that make this argument try to claim, many self-identifying and generally accepted "Expats" are not white and / or come from non-Western countries.

anotherangrydev 11y ago

Tell her that two wrongs never make a right.

alextgordon 11y ago
For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
bilalasif1900 11y ago
Yep, Two wrongs never make a right. i agree with you.

camillomiller 11y ago

The elevation of monogamy and closed relationships as the God-given natural status of a couple is the source of too many problems. Same for not living our own sexuality in the open. By acting like this (that is: like you are supposed to) you are constantly prone to blackmail. If you happen to have a wife that is entitled in her social-induced belief that even thinking about other women is good ground for the termination of a marriage, then external forces will have a great power over you. If you live with a person that accepts external affairs, sex with other people and who is ok with your true sexuality (e.g. If you're bisexual or happen to like transgenders) you will always have someone on your side no matter what, and your relationship to that person can't be menaced by any eventual disclosure. Social stigma might still have a leverage on you, but if you're open with your intimate circle of friends and business acquaintances it would be virtually impossible to use a sex-related scandal against you. The Ashley Madison leak is interesting because of this, too. It's a breakthrough because it exposes behaviors that society still considers immoral and punishable. People that left behind this archaic way of thinking and built their life together with someone that shares more open sexual values are totally immune to this scandal. This is certainly something that would have tickled Sir Bertrand Russell's mind.

zamalek 11y ago
> God-given natural status The "God reasoning" isn't the only reasoning. Just like polygamy is a choice, so is monogamy. It's a sexual choice. What is wrong is that people can't be open about that choice. People should be able to be open and honest about being polygamous or monogamous with their partner - yes, that might sometimes result in the relationship ending; but there's a good chance where there is a disagreement it would have ended with heartbreak further down the line anyway. This should occur long before marriage is ever on the table, or even, before a relationship is on the table. In Africa it's important for people to know their AIDS status and be honest about it; I wish we could do the same thing with relationship preferences. There is nothing wrong with wanting to have only one partner, there is also nothing wrong with wanting to have many partners. Both approaches to relationships have their pros and cons. Either way, debate about polygamy vs. monogamy in this case-scenario is completely irrelevant. Someone was hacked, privacy was violated (it doesn't matter what privacy) and that is the end of that. There's no reason to attach another argument to the discussion because the hack was an outright violation in the first place.

varjag 11y ago

Speaking of NSA, do you think Snowden's revelations were unethical or misguided?

simoncion 11y ago
No.
- tertius 11y ago
  That was supposed to be rhetorical.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    You don't appear to be varjag. :)
rnovak 11y ago
If it had resulted in even a single death, then yes, it would have been negligent of him to release it. But from what I understand, after watching his talks, was that was THE REASON he gave the docs to journalists, so they could evaluate the downsides of releasing each doc. Unethical, absolutely. He breached his employment contract, and exceeded access to systems under the pretense that he was given access to them. Since you asked...

mtgx 11y ago

It's awful, but I also can't help but be happy that this and other hacks like the Fappening will once again make people realize that privacy does matter, and everyone has "something to hide". Law enforcement is having it too easy with the "terrorists can't have safe spaces to communicate" and "think of the children" messages - but what about "think of the adults"? At least this way, people will think twice about supporting mass dragnets or having their data stored unencrypted.

ddingus 11y ago

I'm glad you did. Both your comment and the parent you were responding to were lucid and well worth the read.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago

Presumably she would be fine with a case where Man uses his contacts to find his wife (who left him) via a mate in the phone company? This is an actual case used at British Telecom to emphasize how you should NEVER abuse your access privs. The sobering end of the story he killed her.

joering2 11y ago

> Her position was that marital infidelity is such a pubishable offense that the participants on A.M. deserve to be publicly outed. In her view, it was not even up for debate. She felt so powerfully about infidelity that she didn't care. Congrats! Your girlfriend is a human-being. And if she's not an IT person, she won't see this case same way you do. To her this case is like a bulk caught of (mostly) vast number of men caught cheating - and heavily exposed! I don't see nothing wrong with your gf approach. After all, millions of "law abiding" citizens are in jail because law was on their side, but disgusted jury found them guilty anyways. And I say as long as we live in a society and we want to keep living in rather morally healthy society, it's a good thing.

bdavisx 11y ago

I wonder how she would feel if she was addicted to narcotics, went to NarcAnon and then had her name published when someone leaked/hacked their database because "those people shouldn't have done drugs in the first place". Or replace NA with AA.

dmd 11y ago
I can tell you exactly what a person like that's response would be: "I would never do drugs."
- dsacco 11y ago
  "I don't mind if the government can read my emails, I have nothing to hide."
probably_wrong 11y ago
I think there's a small but important difference. The hack would be closer to someone revealing the list of customers of whoever gave her the narcotics. They did not reveal the identity of those trying to fix their issues, like AA/NA would be. Or, to put it the other way around, they revealed the database of the cheating site, not the patient list of the marriage counselor.

rimantas 11y ago

What is her opinion about stoning people to death for adultery? Because for some involved, I imagine, it would be more desireable outcome than the one they will be facing now.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

I think there are three questions here. Is it legal. Is it moral. Should it be legal. The last is quite complex and I won't get to it here because of the vast differences in moral theories as to what should and should not be legal. As to the first, is it legal? Hacking isn't. The end. But the middle question is interesting, and I dare say that many people have views such as my own, where morality is not dependent on legality but on morality. And I would also dare to say that most people do not have an issue exposing people who are using websites to commit very immoral actions. So the question becomes one of if the action of cheating is immoral enough to cross this threshold. That question is a really deep moral one and you probably have as much ability to change as most any deeply held moral view. In short, most everyone agrees the right to privacy has limits based on extremely immoral actions. The difference is only in what counts as immoral enough, which is far less a distinction than 'right to privacy means hacking is wrong'.

the_af 11y ago
I think you have the right approach, but infidelity is not "strongly immoral" in the sense that it entitles you to publicly humiliate people you aren't in any way related to. It's a private matter between two (or actually, more) people. Your spouse has the right to tell you what you did is "strongly immoral", but Joe Public doesn't. I have zero respect for someone from the public who thinks their moral outrage entitles them to shame someone else for who they have sex with. "Strongly immoral" which belongs in the public sphere is more like human trafficking, murder, corruption in public office, etc.
- joaq 11y ago
  "It's a private matter between two (or actually, more) people." Well, given that they're keeping their partner in the dark in the first place I don't see anything wrong with exposing the cheating scum.
  - the_af 11y ago
    That's a private matter between the people directly involved. Maybe their partner would also be humiliated by the exposure of their private affairs (I know I would), in which case it makes things even worse.

sneak 11y ago

Show her these: https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988534546796546 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988534546796546 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988845483126785 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633988845483126785 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633989126639849474 https://twitter.com/iron_spike/status/633989126639849474

animefan 11y ago

I'm think disagreement is not about privacy per se, but rather the absolute moral correctness of our legal principals. E.g. other people in this article have commented that people who have affairs deserve to be punched in the face (which is also illegal). I think engineers tend to place higher values in legal principals, because (a) we tend to prefer rule based solutions and (b) the tendency to allow exceptions to the law also results in school bullying, which nerds have a greater experience with.

the_af 11y ago
People who have affairs arguably deserve to be punched in the face by their spouses (figuratively speaking; I don't advocate actual violence), not by Joe Public.

erroneousfunk 11y ago

What about those who were on the site with the consent of their partner (swingers, poly, etc)? People who were single and on the site looking for a short-term fling? People just there out of curiosity, or signed up impulsively one night and deleted ("deleted") their account the next day? I would guess the number of married people who signed up, contacted someone, and had an affair through the site are actually in the minority (given the typical funnels for this sort of site, and all the hidden fees involved) There are going to be a lot of very embarrassed people who committed no adultery.

FilterSweep 11y ago

Try explaining to her about the case of some gay men in the middle east using the website discreetly who run the risk of death after this leak: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10084651 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10084651 (citing a reddit post). And, if you are comfortable putting her in a precarious position, you should ask her if she honestly knows of any of her girlfriends who have cheated before. Or, more simply, if any of her girlfriends are not single and have a Tinder account. I've noticed the "shoe on the other foot" has silenced many of the Twitter camp.

hitekker 11y ago
For me there are only two honest responses: A) "I can understand that vigilantism of this kind can hurt innocent people is therefore wrong" B)"if needed, the innocent should suffer so that those who I dislike are ruined". The latter position can be dressed up in all kinds of fancy words "bad people must be brought to justice no matter what". Stripped down to its core, however, and barring the exceptional circumstances, I would say that the desire for street-justice is pretty much evil. So far as I can tell, the rationale for position B is full throttled emotion: "I [want to] hurt the people I don't like and I [want to] kill the people I hate. Doing that makes me feel good, so it is good." Needless to say, I stay as far away from those who subscribe to position B, as humanly possible.

vasilipupkin 11y ago

Well, one way to explain this to your girlfriend is that it is a crime to steal information, even if you are stealing it from people you don't like

tptacek 11y ago
Lots of people don't care about that crime. Look at this thread!
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  understood. They should care because people who go around stealing information will eventually steal their information as well.

balls187 11y ago

Putting aside her feelings of infidelity, and talk about it from the perspective of the spouse that is being cheated on. Perhaps the people who is having the affair should be outed, but what about their spouse? Shouldn't the pain of the extra marital affair be more than enough? Now you have to add in public shame as well?

FireBeyond 11y ago

One comment you could make - is she pro-life/choice? (You don't have to answer to us). Would she feel the same if she was pro-choice and Planned Parenthood's databases were compromised by religious hackers? (I know that termination is only a small percentage of what they do).

Kalium 11y ago

It's a common thought patterns. People have rights, but an arbitrarily selected set of moral principles override those rights. It's no different from the people who support "Free Speech, except for hate speech". Or privacy, except when the person whose privacy is invaded is a racist piece of shit who doesn't deserve privacy because invading his privacy revealed him to be a racist piece of shit.

danvideo 11y ago

I think your explanation about why the twitter crusade feels so despicable is right on, dsacco and Thomas. Yet I'm struggling with why I (and much of the tech community) was OK and frankly downright gleeful at publicizing the Hacking Team hack - their data was exposed illegally and were engaged in immoral behavior re: working with various abusive governments (and had previously denied these facts). If I'm OK with people losing their right to privacy when they violate my moral sense, then am I much better...?

zeendo 11y ago
Umm. Shit. If you come up with a resolution to the cognitive dissonance you just exposed then please let me know.

Tloewald 11y ago

> When I told her that hacking and outing people on a website because they do something you disagree with is playing God, she didn't seem to be phased at all. I think she might be fazed by your telling her what is and isn't playing God. > you can't convince someone this is unethical behavior if they are emotionally invested in it. It would be unethical for A.M. to give out this data. It is almost certainly illegal for a hacker to do so, and you can argue that it's immoral, but it's not clear how it's unethical. Since the hackers did not make monetary demands (or did they) they seem to be operating according to their own code of conduct. I'd say the most clearly wrong thing about this is disclosing CC details. The rest of it comes down to public shaming, and your girlfriend is simply taking the position (I believe) most women (I believe) take that cheaters deserve to be shamed. Now, as to the CC details thing, surely it's the CC vendors who are the most unethical. Their entire system is hopelessly insecure and yet they persist in using it rather than adopting a more secure system (which they could certainly afford to do).

adamconroy 11y ago

Some people simply lack the capability to challenge their own opinions and beliefs. I find it very unattractive. On the other hand other people like myself are too objective and open minded, and as a result never form a strong opinion on anything, which is probably equally unattractive.