10 ms·

I'd argue the opposite. The AM hack hasn't helped at all, since enough people view it as a just retribution due to it being about a pet moral value that is held

I'd argue the opposite. The AM hack hasn't helped at all, since enough people view it as a just retribution due to it being about a pet moral value that is held dear, namely marital fidelity. And to others, it's all a big joke. The cheating cheaters (who likely never got the opportunity to cheat) have been named and shamed, and because of those asserting that it's acceptable to do this if it strokes their personal moral vendetta, then this type of chilling privacy violation is on its way to being normalized.

nostrebored 11y ago
Yeah, well if you engage in a promise with someone that you're going to be in a monogamous relationship -- let's be real, that's what marriage is for the vast majority -- you're a prick if you attempt to break that commitment, and again, that's what being on AM is about. Pretending otherwise is delusional, and having morals isn't a bad thing. Is doxxing always unethical?
- sbarre 11y ago
  Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. Who are you, or anyone else, to question or evaluate "commitment" in a relationship that you have no part of, and know nothing about? Or to force someone's personal private life out in the open where it will be used to judge them without context? Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be.
  - chrischen 11y ago
    Privacy isn't a natural right, just like lying to someone via marriage isn't universally considered unethical. Your right to privacy isn't naturally guaranteed, and is only granted by some mutually agreed upon rules in the form of privacy laws. But if I know some fact about you, what gives you any right to say I can't reveal that information? Wouldn't you be limiting my speech? If you argue that lying in marriage is a complex issue, then privacy rights is also a complex issue that's not black and white. A world with no secrets and a world where everyone has a right to secrecy are both potentially equally valid.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      One could argue privacy is a more natural right than, for example, property rights since strong encryption can give you absolute privacy, even against the state.
      - dnautics 11y ago
        that would be a right to encrypt, not a right to privacy. the 'right to privacy', as established in the US, constitutes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' that is - if you passively (e.g hiding behind a wall) or procatively (enclosing a letter in an envelope) take measures to hide what you are doing then you have the legal right to go after someone who tries to breach this privacy. In the context of encryption, A right to encrypt says that no one can stop you from encrypting your work. A right to privacy says no one is allowed to try to break your encryption.
      - jfb 11y ago
        Ease of technical implementations does not a natural right make.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        I think you and I have different ideas of what absolute means. Encryption protects infromation as long as A) the computation power, time and desire available to break your encryption does not exceed the level you encrypted, B) the underlying math principles on which the encryption was based do not see a change in some manner reducing the effectiveness of the algorithm for this task, or C) The implementation of the encryption algorithm did not suffer some flaw reducing it's effectiveness to the level if can be beaten. I know A and C have happened in the past. I'm unsure whether B has occurred. It's worth noting that in the case of B or C, the strength you choose now may not have any effect on the outcome.
        Zigurd 11y ago
        While one could be wrong about the basics of physics and math, you can encrypt things, cheaply and quickly, that would take a computer made of all the matter and all the energy in the universe to break in more time than the universe has existed. You have to take some care. But an NSA magic code breaking machine is in the same category as flying saucers at Area 51. Exceedingly unlikely. That's about as good a guarantee as nature can offer.
  - scythe 11y ago
    >Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. [...] Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be. The irony thickens. Let me rephrase you: "Who are you, or anyone else, to evaluate 'abuse' in a relationship..." -- the answer is "anyone who knows how to count". While there are exceptions to every rule, the majority of cases fall into rather ordinary examples. Not everyone is special. Of course, indiscriminately doing this sort of thing like the AM hackers is terrible -- notwithstanding those in third-world countries facing draconian legal consequences -- but plenty of the people exposed certainly deserved it.
    - eli 11y ago
      Nobody asked you to intervene in their marriage, investigate their spouse, or enforce any laws -- adultery isn't even a crime in many places. You do not get to impose your morals on others. A stranger cheating on another stranger has nothing to do with you.
      - nostrebored 11y ago
        Clearly from the response we're seeing from society outside of this tech bubble where your privacy must be protected at all times otherwise doom ensues, people want to know when their spouse is cheating on them. You make an assumption that quite frankly ignores reality in favor of a weird moral relativism where any sort of judgment is bad. Odds are that people don't want their spouse cheating on them. Someone stealing from someone else doesn't have an affect on me either, but I would operate under the default assumptions that 1) they want their things 2) they would want to be notified if someone wanted to steal their things 3) they would want to be notified if someone actually stole their things And guess what? People acting in this way has the prosocial implication of teaching people that stealing is bad, and gives me the assurance that if someone is trying to steal from me that people will let me know!
        vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Again, you have no way of gauging intent. An example the poster above gave is a really great one. A couple having a consensual S/M relationship that involves controlled pain, possibly leaving visible marks. Your method would be to immediately rat them out to the authorities. Congratulations, you just ruined a happy couple's relationship because you can't see past your own thin worldview, and never bothered to think before you act.
- eli 11y ago
  At best you're arguing for vigilante justice. An internet mob accountable to no one and meting out punishment to people who, for the most part, have not violated any laws. No, that is not ethical. I don't want self-appointed Morals Police going around ruining lives for perceived crimes. I don't think mob justice is ever ethical.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to undergo court procedure if they so desire. Being on AM wouldn't solely have been about breaking commitment. From what I recall, it became an inadvertent hub for gay dating due to its extraordinary gender/sex imbalance. AM's entire business practice was about hooking into people's desire to seek taboo and then be exorbitant with charging them fees, even for terminating an account. It was, in no minced words, a con. Having morals means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    > Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. That's one way to look at things. I happen to have a different philosophy about marriage, that it actually does affect other people, and since you're so understanding, I'm sure you'll grant that my philosophy is equally valid.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Well, I'd like to hear you actually elaborate on your differing philosophy. That'd be helpful.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      Wasn't there some other difference of opinion regarding the philosophy of marriage recently?
    - jchrisa 11y ago
      A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
- soylentcola 11y ago
  So...basically a large scale version of ruining someone's life for being an asshole? I dunno about you but while I'm not married and have never cheated on a spouse, I've certainly been an asshole before and I'm glad my life wasn't completely screwed over it.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Is doxxing always unethical?" YES
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Is doxxing always unethical?" YES
x5n1 11y ago
The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."
- blowski 11y ago
  The opposite of Gyges's ring. If every fact of everybody's lives, everything you ever thought was public - would you behave more ethically? It's sort of like a panopticon where everybody guards everybody else.
- balabaster 11y ago
  and only at this point will everyone realize we're all hypocrites, liars and cheats that will all do whatever we can get away with when we need to or it serves our purpose. We'll all have to acknowledge that life isn't as black and white as we like to pretend but is almost entirely some blurry shade of grey that only resembles our own specific set of beliefs in the most narrow of circumstances... and that any and all human behaviour is totally normal and would most likely be considered completely fucked up when applied through your own set of ideals. We're all capable of fucking up, making shitty decisions, painting ourselves into corners, getting depressed, thinking emotionally instead of objectively/logically. That is the peril of the human condition. I don't think it's fair for any one of us to pass judgment on others actions except when it comes to the physical safety of the community. So what, one group of people holds marital fidelity dear and think that any action that compromises this view is worthy of exposé. Another group doesn't believe in monogamy or lies about it... largely because to disagree with it ostracizes you from the community - makes you an outsider. Forget innocent parties that are hurt by this - collateral damage, a necessary evil to expose the cheaters. Can you even hear yourselves? Who cares? People lie, cheat and steal all the time. Politicians do it, spies do it, FBI, CIA, NSA, the police, hell, even Presidents do it if it serves their objective. Think about that. When are we going to wake up and realize that this is normal human behaviour - regardless of whether you're happy about that or accept it or not, this is the case. I agree with those who say leave this behind closed doors. If marriages fall to pieces because of this, that is between them. But to publically name and shame people because their [non-criminal and not-concerning-you] actions don't jive with your morals [Perhaps politicians would be an exception to my perspective on this] is inexcusable. Not many are going to die because someone cheats on their spouse - even if they're caught. But leaking a database of this nature has real repercussions that could cause people death or persecution for something that should only between them and their partner and was none of anyone else's business.
inversionOf 11y ago
The data is out there. There was literally no way to stop it. Whether people find glee in it or not is entirely irrelevant, and this notion that if we all just held up our nose no privacy would be invaded is unreasonable. And it's worth noting that the "pet moral value" that people seem the most outraged about is honesty, however much people try to load it with their own hangups. If this was a site for open marriages, tinder hookups, or anything of the sort, I doubt it would have gotten much attention at all. Instead it's a site for people a) lying to their partner, or b) lying to everyone else. Some of the most reported cases have been about raw hypocrisy. This will absolutely make everyone pause when offering up data to third parties though, and really that couldn't come quickly enough. Whenever there is a password database dump, one of the things I've always found most remarkable are the number of people inconvenienced because they use the same password everywhere, trusting their life to every random service they used. Similarly, trusting critical, compromising data to some hookup app -- who have competencies and auditing and archiving that you have no notions about -- seems insane, but it has become an online norm. Breaches like this may make people more considerate of the value of their own data.
jasonlotito 11y ago
The naming and shaming is disgusting. There are people who are cheering on the hackers. They completely disregard the ramifications of this for the innocents involved (the family members and loved ones of the person who signed up) who now have to deal with all this publicly. Imagine any couple that went through a rough patch and reconciled. They've already moved past this, and now they have to live with the knowledge that this information is out there to bring it public. Children being mocked at school because their mother or father was on the site. Imagine anything you dealt with in private that you didn't want to share with others, and not imagine having the choice of dealing with that in private removed from you. It's horrible.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  Right. It strikes me sort of like "hey! this person over here is/has acted like an asshole!" After a point, what do you gain by publicly pointing out the shortcomings of others? I'd like to think that at some point we'd just get over the whole voyeuristic, hypocritical obsession with finding new witches to burn but I'm starting to just accept that it's part of human nature.
- rubicon33 11y ago
  In life, you get to choose your actions, but you do not get to choose the consequences. Yes, some 'went through a rough patch' and 'already moved past this', and are now dealing with a world of pain. But ask yourself, what makes you the authority on how much pain they should have endured for their mistake? As fate would have it, whatever 'moving past' they did will now be really put to the test. This will give some couples a second chance, to really ask themselves if all is forgiven. Yes, some 'innocents' are hurting now. Some spouses, some children maybe too. Is this the fault of the hackers? I'd argue not. Ask yourself, if it weren't for the actions of the people cheating, could this have ever happened? Ashley Madison wouldn't even exist, and this hack would never have transpired, if it weren't for the liars, and cheaters, who made such a site possible. So should we be upset at the hackers, who exposed liars, and cheaters? Or should we be upset at the liars and cheaters, who thought they would get away with it? It's the liars, and the cheaters who hurt their family, not the hackers.
anigbrowl 11y ago
I have to agree. The only way it will lead to change is if multiple powerful people are drastically inconvenienced, and honestly I don't think you get to be powerful in western society by being stupid enough to outsource your guilty pleasures to an online information broker.
SZJX 11y ago
Not really. Those who don't hold this moral value will still think it's a privacy breach. If they think it's a joke and don't take it seriously, then it's some other problem instead of "moral vendetta"

nostrebored 11y ago

Yeah, well if you engage in a promise with someone that you're going to be in a monogamous relationship -- let's be real, that's what marriage is for the vast majority -- you're a prick if you attempt to break that commitment, and again, that's what being on AM is about. Pretending otherwise is delusional, and having morals isn't a bad thing. Is doxxing always unethical?

sbarre 11y ago
Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. Who are you, or anyone else, to question or evaluate "commitment" in a relationship that you have no part of, and know nothing about? Or to force someone's personal private life out in the open where it will be used to judge them without context? Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be.
- chrischen 11y ago
  Privacy isn't a natural right, just like lying to someone via marriage isn't universally considered unethical. Your right to privacy isn't naturally guaranteed, and is only granted by some mutually agreed upon rules in the form of privacy laws. But if I know some fact about you, what gives you any right to say I can't reveal that information? Wouldn't you be limiting my speech? If you argue that lying in marriage is a complex issue, then privacy rights is also a complex issue that's not black and white. A world with no secrets and a world where everyone has a right to secrecy are both potentially equally valid.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    One could argue privacy is a more natural right than, for example, property rights since strong encryption can give you absolute privacy, even against the state.
    - dnautics 11y ago
      that would be a right to encrypt, not a right to privacy. the 'right to privacy', as established in the US, constitutes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' that is - if you passively (e.g hiding behind a wall) or procatively (enclosing a letter in an envelope) take measures to hide what you are doing then you have the legal right to go after someone who tries to breach this privacy. In the context of encryption, A right to encrypt says that no one can stop you from encrypting your work. A right to privacy says no one is allowed to try to break your encryption.
    - jfb 11y ago
      Ease of technical implementations does not a natural right make.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I think you and I have different ideas of what absolute means. Encryption protects infromation as long as A) the computation power, time and desire available to break your encryption does not exceed the level you encrypted, B) the underlying math principles on which the encryption was based do not see a change in some manner reducing the effectiveness of the algorithm for this task, or C) The implementation of the encryption algorithm did not suffer some flaw reducing it's effectiveness to the level if can be beaten. I know A and C have happened in the past. I'm unsure whether B has occurred. It's worth noting that in the case of B or C, the strength you choose now may not have any effect on the outcome.
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        While one could be wrong about the basics of physics and math, you can encrypt things, cheaply and quickly, that would take a computer made of all the matter and all the energy in the universe to break in more time than the universe has existed. You have to take some care. But an NSA magic code breaking machine is in the same category as flying saucers at Area 51. Exceedingly unlikely. That's about as good a guarantee as nature can offer.
- scythe 11y ago
  >Yes, it absolutely is always unethical. [...] Nothing is as black and white as you are claiming it to be. The irony thickens. Let me rephrase you: "Who are you, or anyone else, to evaluate 'abuse' in a relationship..." -- the answer is "anyone who knows how to count". While there are exceptions to every rule, the majority of cases fall into rather ordinary examples. Not everyone is special. Of course, indiscriminately doing this sort of thing like the AM hackers is terrible -- notwithstanding those in third-world countries facing draconian legal consequences -- but plenty of the people exposed certainly deserved it.
  - eli 11y ago
    Nobody asked you to intervene in their marriage, investigate their spouse, or enforce any laws -- adultery isn't even a crime in many places. You do not get to impose your morals on others. A stranger cheating on another stranger has nothing to do with you.
    - nostrebored 11y ago
      Clearly from the response we're seeing from society outside of this tech bubble where your privacy must be protected at all times otherwise doom ensues, people want to know when their spouse is cheating on them. You make an assumption that quite frankly ignores reality in favor of a weird moral relativism where any sort of judgment is bad. Odds are that people don't want their spouse cheating on them. Someone stealing from someone else doesn't have an affect on me either, but I would operate under the default assumptions that 1) they want their things 2) they would want to be notified if someone wanted to steal their things 3) they would want to be notified if someone actually stole their things And guess what? People acting in this way has the prosocial implication of teaching people that stealing is bad, and gives me the assurance that if someone is trying to steal from me that people will let me know!
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Again, you have no way of gauging intent. An example the poster above gave is a really great one. A couple having a consensual S/M relationship that involves controlled pain, possibly leaving visible marks. Your method would be to immediately rat them out to the authorities. Congratulations, you just ruined a happy couple's relationship because you can't see past your own thin worldview, and never bothered to think before you act.
eli 11y ago
At best you're arguing for vigilante justice. An internet mob accountable to no one and meting out punishment to people who, for the most part, have not violated any laws. No, that is not ethical. I don't want self-appointed Morals Police going around ruining lives for perceived crimes. I don't think mob justice is ever ethical.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to undergo court procedure if they so desire. Being on AM wouldn't solely have been about breaking commitment. From what I recall, it became an inadvertent hub for gay dating due to its extraordinary gender/sex imbalance. AM's entire business practice was about hooking into people's desire to seek taboo and then be exorbitant with charging them fees, even for terminating an account. It was, in no minced words, a con. Having morals means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. That's one way to look at things. I happen to have a different philosophy about marriage, that it actually does affect other people, and since you're so understanding, I'm sure you'll grant that my philosophy is equally valid.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Well, I'd like to hear you actually elaborate on your differing philosophy. That'd be helpful.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Wasn't there some other difference of opinion regarding the philosophy of marriage recently?
  - jchrisa 11y ago
    A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
soylentcola 11y ago
So...basically a large scale version of ruining someone's life for being an asshole? I dunno about you but while I'm not married and have never cheated on a spouse, I've certainly been an asshole before and I'm glad my life wasn't completely screwed over it.
s73v3r 11y ago
"Is doxxing always unethical?" YES
s73v3r 11y ago
"Is doxxing always unethical?" YES

x5n1 11y ago

The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."

blowski 11y ago
The opposite of Gyges's ring. If every fact of everybody's lives, everything you ever thought was public - would you behave more ethically? It's sort of like a panopticon where everybody guards everybody else.
balabaster 11y ago
and only at this point will everyone realize we're all hypocrites, liars and cheats that will all do whatever we can get away with when we need to or it serves our purpose. We'll all have to acknowledge that life isn't as black and white as we like to pretend but is almost entirely some blurry shade of grey that only resembles our own specific set of beliefs in the most narrow of circumstances... and that any and all human behaviour is totally normal and would most likely be considered completely fucked up when applied through your own set of ideals. We're all capable of fucking up, making shitty decisions, painting ourselves into corners, getting depressed, thinking emotionally instead of objectively/logically. That is the peril of the human condition. I don't think it's fair for any one of us to pass judgment on others actions except when it comes to the physical safety of the community. So what, one group of people holds marital fidelity dear and think that any action that compromises this view is worthy of exposé. Another group doesn't believe in monogamy or lies about it... largely because to disagree with it ostracizes you from the community - makes you an outsider. Forget innocent parties that are hurt by this - collateral damage, a necessary evil to expose the cheaters. Can you even hear yourselves? Who cares? People lie, cheat and steal all the time. Politicians do it, spies do it, FBI, CIA, NSA, the police, hell, even Presidents do it if it serves their objective. Think about that. When are we going to wake up and realize that this is normal human behaviour - regardless of whether you're happy about that or accept it or not, this is the case. I agree with those who say leave this behind closed doors. If marriages fall to pieces because of this, that is between them. But to publically name and shame people because their [non-criminal and not-concerning-you] actions don't jive with your morals [Perhaps politicians would be an exception to my perspective on this] is inexcusable. Not many are going to die because someone cheats on their spouse - even if they're caught. But leaking a database of this nature has real repercussions that could cause people death or persecution for something that should only between them and their partner and was none of anyone else's business.

inversionOf 11y ago

The data is out there. There was literally no way to stop it. Whether people find glee in it or not is entirely irrelevant, and this notion that if we all just held up our nose no privacy would be invaded is unreasonable. And it's worth noting that the "pet moral value" that people seem the most outraged about is honesty, however much people try to load it with their own hangups. If this was a site for open marriages, tinder hookups, or anything of the sort, I doubt it would have gotten much attention at all. Instead it's a site for people a) lying to their partner, or b) lying to everyone else. Some of the most reported cases have been about raw hypocrisy. This will absolutely make everyone pause when offering up data to third parties though, and really that couldn't come quickly enough. Whenever there is a password database dump, one of the things I've always found most remarkable are the number of people inconvenienced because they use the same password everywhere, trusting their life to every random service they used. Similarly, trusting critical, compromising data to some hookup app -- who have competencies and auditing and archiving that you have no notions about -- seems insane, but it has become an online norm. Breaches like this may make people more considerate of the value of their own data.

jasonlotito 11y ago

The naming and shaming is disgusting. There are people who are cheering on the hackers. They completely disregard the ramifications of this for the innocents involved (the family members and loved ones of the person who signed up) who now have to deal with all this publicly. Imagine any couple that went through a rough patch and reconciled. They've already moved past this, and now they have to live with the knowledge that this information is out there to bring it public. Children being mocked at school because their mother or father was on the site. Imagine anything you dealt with in private that you didn't want to share with others, and not imagine having the choice of dealing with that in private removed from you. It's horrible.

soylentcola 11y ago
Right. It strikes me sort of like "hey! this person over here is/has acted like an asshole!" After a point, what do you gain by publicly pointing out the shortcomings of others? I'd like to think that at some point we'd just get over the whole voyeuristic, hypocritical obsession with finding new witches to burn but I'm starting to just accept that it's part of human nature.
rubicon33 11y ago
In life, you get to choose your actions, but you do not get to choose the consequences. Yes, some 'went through a rough patch' and 'already moved past this', and are now dealing with a world of pain. But ask yourself, what makes you the authority on how much pain they should have endured for their mistake? As fate would have it, whatever 'moving past' they did will now be really put to the test. This will give some couples a second chance, to really ask themselves if all is forgiven. Yes, some 'innocents' are hurting now. Some spouses, some children maybe too. Is this the fault of the hackers? I'd argue not. Ask yourself, if it weren't for the actions of the people cheating, could this have ever happened? Ashley Madison wouldn't even exist, and this hack would never have transpired, if it weren't for the liars, and cheaters, who made such a site possible. So should we be upset at the hackers, who exposed liars, and cheaters? Or should we be upset at the liars and cheaters, who thought they would get away with it? It's the liars, and the cheaters who hurt their family, not the hackers.

anigbrowl 11y ago

I have to agree. The only way it will lead to change is if multiple powerful people are drastically inconvenienced, and honestly I don't think you get to be powerful in western society by being stupid enough to outsource your guilty pleasures to an online information broker.

SZJX 11y ago

Not really. Those who don't hold this moral value will still think it's a privacy breach. If they think it's a joke and don't take it seriously, then it's some other problem instead of "moral vendetta"