9 ms·

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 m

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.
        kbenson 11y ago
        There's a very specific reason I included B and C in my listed cases. I agree in many or most cases it could be said that it's unlikely certain encryption methods would be bypassed, but to me that only gives you a fairly good prospect of being secure, not an absolute certainty. That may or may not affect your original argument, I'm not sure.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    A lot of courts think it is
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- 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

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.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        There's a very specific reason I included B and C in my listed cases. I agree in many or most cases it could be said that it's unlikely certain encryption methods would be bypassed, but to me that only gives you a fairly good prospect of being secure, not an absolute certainty. That may or may not affect your original argument, I'm not sure.
- walshemj 11y ago
  A lot of courts think it is
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
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