7 ms·

What us worry? Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week

29 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

1971genocide 11y ago
It tells me two things : 1) there a lot of people out there who use the internet and NOT read or tune into TV or any internet news. 2) RIP my future career in computer security. It seems users do not care about security as much as I though.
- uptown 11y ago
  Or a company that has dishonesty baked into its product and its culture, continues to lie about its user metrics.
  - breitling 11y ago
    That's what I was thinking as well. This whole thing could be just a PR move full of lies. In case this news is genuine...I guess it's true that any publicity is good publicity.
  - inversionOf 11y ago
    This is the aspect that absolutely boggles -- the company has provably lied time and time again. They've lied about markets, metrics, and the composition of their userbase. There is no honor among thieves, the saying goes, and you can't expect an adultery site to show great morals. Yet it keeps getting reported as if it were truth. There was one single news group that actually basically said "Yeah...sure...", but everyone else just went with it as a statement of fact. The company has no credibility at all.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  Learn how to hack drones and robots. You'll have a career.
- spydum 11y ago
  I think for #2, you mean in computer privacy. "security" is still alive and well: but it's only half-heartedly implemented to protect privacy.
- Nicholas_C 11y ago
  I think it really just means that people are curious about one of the largest and most well known hack in years and are making accounts just out of curiosity. I would wager that many of the accounts were made with fake details just to scope out the website and see for themselves.
einrealist 11y ago
It is not a public company. So basically, they can say what they like. There is no need for them to prove their numbers (as long it is not advertisement). They probably also lied about their numbers on female members.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  If they ever said that fewer than 95% of female "members" were really prostitutes who wanted to advertise online, then yes, they lied about numbers on female members. It's easier for a website to stay open when claiming to cater to "cheating" than when truthfully admitting to cater to prostitution.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    > They probably also lied about their numbers on female members. A friend of a friend said (read: no resource to back this claim up) that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. Leads me to ask: > Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week Do they mean that they added 100K users, or did 100K users sign up?
    - sbierwagen 11y ago
      that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. That was a Gawker article: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-ma... Most relevant graph: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302217017410.png https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302... 11,030,920 to 2,409
  - eonw 11y ago
    that is quite the assumption considering that there are already many large sites to find escorts on for free.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
mml 11y ago
I'd hazard a guess that, if true in any way (ludicrously unlikely), 99% of these allegedly female accounts might be wives looking for their husbands.
- kelvin0 11y ago
  Are you saying men cheat more than women?
  - nextw33k 11y ago
    Studies report the answer is yes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233843 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233843
Alterlife 11y ago
If I had to guess, an overwhelming bulk of the signups must be by people who heard about this thorough the negative publicity. They're going to sign up and log in because it's mandatory to view the content. Once they're in, they will search for their friends, colleges and significant other... and then they will never use it again. I'd like to know how many of those are paid vs un-paid accounts.
- apetresc 11y ago
  I could be wrong but I'm 99% sure you can't just search an individual by logging in.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    But how many people know that ahead of time?
  - Nicholas_C 11y ago
    Or they're searching within a general proximity of their location just to see who's on.
  - throwaway7767 11y ago
    But there's only one way to be completely sure, right? And that's probably the source of a lot of these signups.
- Vexs 11y ago
  I think this is the most obvious conclusion to gather, I had never heard of the service until the hack. While it's true that most people don't think as much about security as they should; the media has done a fairly good job at convening everyone that this hack could ruin the lives of anyone on the site. I'd say their service is dead, unless they do some major rebranding.
- pravda 11y ago
  >I'd like to know how many of those are paid vs un-paid accounts. As I understand it, accounts are 'free', you pay to send messages. That's how the bot-scam works...they generate fake messages to the users and the users spend money to reply. Noel Biderman and his gang of fraudsters should be arrested and spend the next few decades in prison.
auggierose 11y ago
They added "87,596 women". Now, if you look at that number, does anything feel unnatural and made up about it? 56789.
- ad-hominem 11y ago
  Just because the integers in that number happen to be consecutive if you reorder them doesn't mean they aren't "natural" (whatever that means). For example, a random number generator is exactly as likely to generate 12345 as it is 00000 or 92834 (for five digits). That doesn't mean any of those options is more "natural" or "random" than any other just because it doesn't "look random enough".
- dspillett 11y ago
  I could easily believe a large number of women signing up if the vast majority of them are either: * people signing up with fake details to look for people they know (their friends/colleagues, local politicians, their own spouse, etc) or * sex workers who heard on the news about a great site to advertise their availability on that they were previously unaware of
neekb 11y ago
I find it hilarious that anyone is signing up, man or woman, after finding out that there were so many "bots" there talking to people. If this company has ambitions of being public (or being a company at all) then the bots shouldn't be a thing. That's just straight up defrauding users. The problem with the site in general is that (relatively speaking) there aren't a lot of people looking SPECIFICALLY for affairs. No doubt SOME, but not a LOT. I think that the reason is that affairs work that way. I don't think people wake up, sigh deeply, and say "I think I'll have an affair today". It comes from a relationship that is broken (actually, 2 relationships that are broken), and an opportunity (finding that second person).
dotcoma 11y ago
99,500 of them men. Or fake.
- dspillett 11y ago
  Or prostitutes.
commentzorro 11y ago
Make that 100K + 1. Now that I know they can't be trusted with their data and that there's the potential to completely destroy my marriage and my family how could I pass that up?
Jedd 11y ago
"... although Ars has no way of confirming any of the numbers provided." Just wait a couple of weeks, and we'll all be able to confirm the numbers.
efriese 11y ago
"We have people in the back room creating new profiles as we speak."
Bill_Dimm 11y ago
Should we take 100k new users to mean 100 new Ashley Madison employees generating 1,000 fake accounts each? http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/ashley-madison-should-take-better-care-of-the-females-it-hires-to-trick-you/ http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/ashley-madison-should-take-be...
ausjke 11y ago
Since there are 90+% female accounts are fake, and their "delete-all-your-info" premium service is also phony, should I really trust the statement "100k new users" over last week? After all the site is sort of about cheating in relationship, so fake/phony might be the norm, to some extent.
godgod 11y ago
Sucker born every minute. Don't these guys know the majority of women on AM that they have signed up to cheat with, are FAKE?

29 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

1971genocide 11y ago

It tells me two things : 1) there a lot of people out there who use the internet and NOT read or tune into TV or any internet news. 2) RIP my future career in computer security. It seems users do not care about security as much as I though.

uptown 11y ago
Or a company that has dishonesty baked into its product and its culture, continues to lie about its user metrics.
- breitling 11y ago
  That's what I was thinking as well. This whole thing could be just a PR move full of lies. In case this news is genuine...I guess it's true that any publicity is good publicity.
- inversionOf 11y ago
  This is the aspect that absolutely boggles -- the company has provably lied time and time again. They've lied about markets, metrics, and the composition of their userbase. There is no honor among thieves, the saying goes, and you can't expect an adultery site to show great morals. Yet it keeps getting reported as if it were truth. There was one single news group that actually basically said "Yeah...sure...", but everyone else just went with it as a statement of fact. The company has no credibility at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JabavuAdams 11y ago
Learn how to hack drones and robots. You'll have a career.
spydum 11y ago
I think for #2, you mean in computer privacy. "security" is still alive and well: but it's only half-heartedly implemented to protect privacy.
Nicholas_C 11y ago
I think it really just means that people are curious about one of the largest and most well known hack in years and are making accounts just out of curiosity. I would wager that many of the accounts were made with fake details just to scope out the website and see for themselves.

einrealist 11y ago

It is not a public company. So basically, they can say what they like. There is no need for them to prove their numbers (as long it is not advertisement). They probably also lied about their numbers on female members.

jessaustin 11y ago
If they ever said that fewer than 95% of female "members" were really prostitutes who wanted to advertise online, then yes, they lied about numbers on female members. It's easier for a website to stay open when claiming to cater to "cheating" than when truthfully admitting to cater to prostitution.
- zamalek 11y ago
  > They probably also lied about their numbers on female members. A friend of a friend said (read: no resource to back this claim up) that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. Leads me to ask: > Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week Do they mean that they added 100K users, or did 100K users sign up?
  - sbierwagen 11y ago
    that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. That was a Gawker article: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-ma... Most relevant graph: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302217017410.png https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302... 11,030,920 to 2,409
- eonw 11y ago
  that is quite the assumption considering that there are already many large sites to find escorts on for free.
  - jessaustin 11y ago

mml 11y ago

I'd hazard a guess that, if true in any way (ludicrously unlikely), 99% of these allegedly female accounts might be wives looking for their husbands.

kelvin0 11y ago
Are you saying men cheat more than women?
- nextw33k 11y ago
  Studies report the answer is yes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233843 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233843

Alterlife 11y ago

If I had to guess, an overwhelming bulk of the signups must be by people who heard about this thorough the negative publicity. They're going to sign up and log in because it's mandatory to view the content. Once they're in, they will search for their friends, colleges and significant other... and then they will never use it again. I'd like to know how many of those are paid vs un-paid accounts.

apetresc 11y ago
I could be wrong but I'm 99% sure you can't just search an individual by logging in.
- mikeash 11y ago
  But how many people know that ahead of time?
- Nicholas_C 11y ago
  Or they're searching within a general proximity of their location just to see who's on.
- throwaway7767 11y ago
  But there's only one way to be completely sure, right? And that's probably the source of a lot of these signups.
Vexs 11y ago
I think this is the most obvious conclusion to gather, I had never heard of the service until the hack. While it's true that most people don't think as much about security as they should; the media has done a fairly good job at convening everyone that this hack could ruin the lives of anyone on the site. I'd say their service is dead, unless they do some major rebranding.
pravda 11y ago
>I'd like to know how many of those are paid vs un-paid accounts. As I understand it, accounts are 'free', you pay to send messages. That's how the bot-scam works...they generate fake messages to the users and the users spend money to reply. Noel Biderman and his gang of fraudsters should be arrested and spend the next few decades in prison.

auggierose 11y ago

They added "87,596 women". Now, if you look at that number, does anything feel unnatural and made up about it? 56789.

ad-hominem 11y ago
Just because the integers in that number happen to be consecutive if you reorder them doesn't mean they aren't "natural" (whatever that means). For example, a random number generator is exactly as likely to generate 12345 as it is 00000 or 92834 (for five digits). That doesn't mean any of those options is more "natural" or "random" than any other just because it doesn't "look random enough".
dspillett 11y ago
I could easily believe a large number of women signing up if the vast majority of them are either: * people signing up with fake details to look for people they know (their friends/colleagues, local politicians, their own spouse, etc) or * sex workers who heard on the news about a great site to advertise their availability on that they were previously unaware of

neekb 11y ago

I find it hilarious that anyone is signing up, man or woman, after finding out that there were so many "bots" there talking to people. If this company has ambitions of being public (or being a company at all) then the bots shouldn't be a thing. That's just straight up defrauding users. The problem with the site in general is that (relatively speaking) there aren't a lot of people looking SPECIFICALLY for affairs. No doubt SOME, but not a LOT. I think that the reason is that affairs work that way. I don't think people wake up, sigh deeply, and say "I think I'll have an affair today". It comes from a relationship that is broken (actually, 2 relationships that are broken), and an opportunity (finding that second person).

dotcoma 11y ago

99,500 of them men. Or fake.

dspillett 11y ago
Or prostitutes.

commentzorro 11y ago

Make that 100K + 1. Now that I know they can't be trusted with their data and that there's the potential to completely destroy my marriage and my family how could I pass that up?

Jedd 11y ago

"... although Ars has no way of confirming any of the numbers provided." Just wait a couple of weeks, and we'll all be able to confirm the numbers.

efriese 11y ago

"We have people in the back room creating new profiles as we speak."

Bill_Dimm 11y ago

Should we take 100k new users to mean 100 new Ashley Madison employees generating 1,000 fake accounts each? http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/ashley-madison-should-take-better-care-of-the-females-it-hires-to-trick-you/ http://abovethelaw.com/2013/11/ashley-madison-should-take-be...

ausjke 11y ago

Since there are 90+% female accounts are fake, and their "delete-all-your-info" premium service is also phony, should I really trust the statement "100k new users" over last week? After all the site is sort of about cheating in relationship, so fake/phony might be the norm, to some extent.

godgod 11y ago

Sucker born every minute. Don't these guys know the majority of women on AM that they have signed up to cheat with, are FAKE?