10 ms·

It get's me that so many people are basically saying it serves these people right for using the service. I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating

It get's me that so many people are basically saying it serves these people right for using the service. I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. Secondly, I'd wager that many of the users sign up to use Ashley Madison for the thrill of the idea and probably aren't actually cheaters themselves or hooking up with other cheaters. A lot of the users are probably into the idea of roll playing or something similar. It's just too bad because I think due to the nature of the site a lot of people's private information is going to be leaked because this hacking group thinks they are doing something righteous and justified.

jessriedel 11y ago
All parties involved can be at fault. And lots of people will think that privacy, while very important, is not quite at the same level as marital fidelity. It's like hearing that a vicious murderous mob boss had his leg shot off. Yes, the person who took his leg ought to be sent to jail, but we might not have much sympathy for the mob boss since his terrible actions led directly to those consequences.
- anotherangrydev 11y ago
  Typical. Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)
  - jaawn 11y ago
    I don't think this argument really applies. It would be one thing if the site was devoted to assisting "open relationships," but it isn't. It is specifically a service to assist people in "cheating" on their partners (with the assumption being that the partners don't know and wouldn't approve). So, because of this specific detail, I don't think the "people not like me should be treated equally!" argument applies. The betrayal is intrinsic, not a matter of opinion.
    - harlanlewis 11y ago
      Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.
      - ArtDev 11y ago
        The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful. The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Inherently harmful to whom? PS Those ads are awful.
        vectorjohn 11y ago
        This is not a factual statement. It's your opinion. It isn't up to you to decide this for other people.
        jaawn 11y ago
        Its intent is to do something which harms. I don't think the infinitesimal collection of people who want their partners to "cheat" on them justify the flexibility you're implying. Basically, what you are saying, is that some people are not harmed by being cheated on, and therefore it isn't fair for us to judge the actions of the sites users, because maybe all or most of them are in a situation where there is no harm. I think the simpler explanation (and likely more accurate one) is that in most cases, each AM user has at least one partner which is being harmed by the user's actions and use of the site. Being accepting and tolerant of different types of relationships and desires is a separate issue. The site was created for, and is marketed towards, people who want to cheat (in the traditional, harmful sense) on their current partners.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    Typical. Free Speech! (has nothing to do with government censorship or banning of speech of any kind) Equal rights! (has nothing to do with people being granted rights equally by the government, or those rights being applied unevenly) Is someone here promoting censorship or banning of a type of speech? Is someone of Class B being persecuted for a crime Class A would not be persecuted for? If the answer to both questions is no, then we are not discussing free speech or equal rights. Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) is neither anti-free speech nor anti-equal rights. Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected?
    - jasonlotito 11y ago
      Oh, I can play "snarky HN comment" too! Ahem... Typical. Privacy! (until people I disagree with have their privacy taken). The Free Speech/Equal Rights remarks weren't about this case. The GP's comment was alluding to them and comparing them to Privacy, which was what was being discussed. Your remarks about Free Speech and Equal Rights are pointless and immaterial. > Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) Just curious, what crime did they commit in signing up for AM? What proof do you have that they did sign up? What proof do you have that the released data will be accurate? What contract did they violate by signing up for AM? I'm curious to know what proof you have besides assumptions to make a bold statement that anyone mentioned in the released data is immediately guilty of something. > Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected? Do you think it would be better for us to find people guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.
    - dublinben 11y ago
      You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'
      - eropple 11y ago
        Cool, so it's alright for me to air your dirtiest of laundry? I'll remember that.
        dublinben 11y ago
        Even if I took umbrage to that, how is censorship legislation going to stop you?
        vectorjohn 11y ago
        It is perfectly legal, yes. You still are an asshole if you do it.
      - Retra 11y ago
        You realize that you are advocating for single-point-of-failure, right? That if I learn anything at all about you, that I should be free to share it with whomever I like in any way I want, and for any reason? Do you honestly believe that you are so good at guarding information that you have nothing to fear from it's free propagation? And that this is not only true for you, but for everyone?
        dublinben 11y ago
        Would censorship legislation prevent you from doing so, if you really wanted to? We should spend more effort removing the potential harm that unwanted information disclosure can cause, rather than running around plugging leaks and jailing whistleblowers.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- john_b 11y ago
  Except that shooting someone is generally illegal, whereas having an affair is not. Allocate your sympathy as you wish, but don't pretend that a person deserves to be the victim of a crime because you or anyone else find their behavior distasteful.
  - josinalvo 11y ago
    To cheat, to break your word given to a life partner, is not just distasteful. It is wrong. It makes the world a darker place, and not only to you and your partner (and that is what wrong means) I know this kind of statement is viewed with distrust. And I see why this is so. But I think some moral discussion might be good (rather than just the bland 'lets not judge') First, I am not saying that I think all marriages need to be monogamical or 'till death'. Both ideas are probably bad on average (i.e.: make the world a darker place as well, cause needless suffering). I, for one, think that promissing monogamy is a bad idea. But to break the promice of monogamy is, indeed, bad. First, it is inherently unfair: One partner (Pa) might be resisting temptations, to the benefit of the other (Pb). Pb gets benefits from increased marriage security, increase sexual availability from Pa, increased emotional availability... But does not offer the same. I mean, it would be clear that withdrawing all the money from a joint savings account is bad, right? That is the same thing... One side is doing a lot of effort to keep a mutual benefit working... To cheat is a form of exploitation.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      The time, place, and manner of sex or other activity that occurs between two consenting adults is none of my business whatsoever unless one of those people is my spouse. When one of those people is my spouse and the other is not me, then my problem is with my spouse, not with any website or other instrument used to facilitate the infidelity. What meaning would an agreement such as marriage have if cheating were literally impossible? >But I think some moral discussion might be good Let's discuss how we can keep from inflicting our own personal morals on those who do not share our moral philosophies; lest someone show up here and one-up us all with an even better morality than the one we already have.
amyjess 11y ago
> Secondly, I'd wager that many of the users sign up to use Ashley Madison for the thrill of the idea and probably aren't actually cheaters themselves or hooking up with other cheaters. A lot of the users are probably into the idea of roll playing or something similar. The site charges money to use most of its features. The people who just signed up out of sheer curiosity and have no interest in using it probably aren't paying customers, and as such, don't need to provide personal information.
- iopq 11y ago
  How about the people who signed up and did pay... but are not ACTUALLY in a relationship with anyone else?
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
The arm-chair morality here is mindblowing. Reminds me of when homosexuals developed aids in the 80s; "Serves them right." I think people need to really stop it with the revenge fantasies for behaviors they dislike. If anything, AM reflects something that might change in society, namely if life-long monogamy makes sense. Many would argue that of course it does, but not too long ago these were the same people calling homosexually immoral as well. Personally, I find monogamy questionable and from the few discussions I've had on this subject, many feel obligated to be monogamous only because of social convention. Considering the divorce rate, it seems to be the idea of marriage as this lifelong romantic bond may not be compatible with a modern lifestyle. Some of the happiest and most fulfilled people I know are on their second or third marriage or have non-traditional lifestyles in regards to the social contract they have with their SO(s). Frankly, its none of our business is someone is cheating. Why do we suddenly feel the need to be busybodies in that regard? There's this sad kind of "I can fuck with you with my hax0r skills and report this to your wife" neckbeardism at play here. I wish we lived in a society where people minded their own business. Funny how HN's libertarianism takes a backseat to its largely Christian-Judeo moral roots. I don't see how cheating must compel someone to whistleblow. It just seems like a nerd powertrip to me. My only issue here is that sex work is somehow still illegal and that means the ladies on AM can be, and probably are, victimized by pimps, human trafficking, etc. Shame that this narrative won't make the press but "OMG CHEATERS" will.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  If anything, AM reflects something that might change in society, namely if life-long monogamy makes sense. The time for that discussion is long before one decides of their own free will to take part in life-long monogamy. Once you've made that promise, and then renege on it (a harmful act in of itself), there is a second person in that equation who is being harmed. Are innocent people likely to be harmed by this? Of course. But AM's entire reason for existing is perpetuation of marital infidelity. Given that AM's advertising emphasizes the "go have an affair!" business, we can reasonably assume that most of this company's clientele are people who are in committed relationships. I find it very hard to be bothered by the fact that the majority of that site's customer base will be called to account for grave lies to their spouse. (I was going to make an admonishment to stop downvoting the guy above me, but then they added the completely unwarranted "neckbeardism" remark.. knock yourselves out, I guess) (And then they added the further completely unwarranted remark about "judeo-christian" values... jeez dude...)
aetherson 11y ago
Lots of people who use the site may be "innocent" (because they didn't actually do anything, or because they're in an open marriage or whatever). And even people who are to one degree or other "guilty" are not as a class to be declared guilty and given all the same punishment. That said, while I can't necessarily judge any given user of the site, I'm pretty confident that the people running the site are contributing to net misery in the world. And certainly I think that it would fall within the realm of justice for them to be (at least!) forced to turn the site off. But I don't think that's the most likely outcome.
- unchocked 11y ago
  I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about relations between consenting adults, or those who facilitate them. Adults are free to fuck: they are happier for doing it.
  - aetherson 11y ago
    Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.
    - stdgy 11y ago
      Is there significant evidence that people who engage in affairs are more likely to be unhappy than happy after having engaged in them? I don't doubt the claim, but evidence would be appreciated.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      "the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't considered whole people. In determining the validity of one's vitriol towards another people, there are far better metrics for determining the extent than whether or not the "rest of society" agrees with me. I, personally, am not comfortable with our society's complete ban on polygamy. Even though "the rest of society" seems perfectly fine to impose their morality upon the polygamists, I am uncomfortable joining in.
netcan 11y ago
Adding to that, we need to be especially wary of righteous belligerence targeting sexual immorality. We have an ancient and rarely broken tradition of ruining people by accusing them of sexual misbehavior. Infidelity, promiscuity, homosexuality. OScar Wilde & Alan Turing come to mind, from an endless list.
- amyjess 11y ago
  As an LGBT person (both L and T), please don't compare me to cheaters. We're nothing alike, and I find it deeply insulting when people compare cheating with sexual orientation.
  - genericuser 11y ago
    The similarity would extend so far as the negative views society has for people in any of those groups. In all cases members of society currently hold or have held in the past a view that these behaviors even when not having a negative effect on any individual are something which 'erode the moral fabric of society'. It is not a similarity in the groups themselves, but in how they are regarded or have been regarded by others. Forcing ones morals upon others in instances where there is no harm to anyone(while arguable in many cases of cheating, is certainly true in some cases), would be the common thread. For everyone who identifies as some sort of Poly or other group it is probably painful to have members of other groups, which are unfortunately still discriminated against, view their differences from the accepted moral norm in a negative light like this. People in general want to be accepted for who they are, and ideally judged by a moral code similar to the one they themselves hold. At least that is my view on the situation. I realize cheating is often not a mutual agreement between all parties, and in those cases a person is being harmed and there is reason for society to view it negatively, however that is not always the situation, and in these cases I think other groups who have been discriminated against recognizing the similarity would be valuable to humanity in general.
  - bonif 11y ago
    You wouldn't find it insulting, if you actually understood what he/she said
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I agree with the sentiment that the nature of the site doesn't condone the action. I note that by its nature, it is a very attractive target for thieves as that data could be the basis for extortion. It also might be used in political campaigns or against other public figures. But at the end of the day, it is another example of how organized crime has moved into the "net" and set up shop. Which combined with nation states using the "net" to achieve political ends, be it espionage, surveillance, or intimidation, means for those of us who remember a time before the internet, it has completely fulfilled all of the worst predictions of what would happen with it. Now we need to fix it, and we need to keep our own nation-states from preventing us from fixing it.
- cmyr 11y ago
  Why do we assume this is organized crime? It seems to be more a vigilante then a 'for-profit' crime.
  - aaronem 11y ago
    Indeed; you'd think that, had it been done with intent to extort users or otherwise make prolonged use of the stolen information, they wouldn't have been so obvious about having broken in to begin with.
- imglorp 11y ago
  You can now view nation states, organized crime, and single actors as approximately all equivalent in capability, motivation, and disregard for any laws. So the distinction is not important. Any of those actors can, will, and have used such data to meet their goals.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    I agree. I think state actors obviously have much stronger technical capabilities and can operate with impunity, but a motivated actor can certainly achieve nefarious ends in most cases. Especially against a large public website where the attack surface is massive and the potential of a breach would provide a wealth of privileged information that would provide substantial motivation.
davemel37 11y ago
I agree that privacy should be protected and its unfair if personal info gets exposed...but there is one simple fact that remains. If you used the site and were exposed it is not the exposure that caused you damage it is your actions that caused you damage and ultimately the buck stops with you.
lukas099 11y ago
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people saying that are insecure about their own relationships.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  Exactly, as someone who has zero worries about my partners fidelity it doesn't bother me one bit what other people do.
  - lukas099 11y ago
    I think you're being sarcastic? I'm just saying that I've seen people get overly-emotional about these things before. Cheating is bad, yes, but let's not make it disproportionately so.
robgibbons 11y ago
I feel the exact opposite. Moral justice is on the side of the hackers. This website, and all the others like it, only exist to profit while helping people destroy their own lives, in addition their loved ones' lives. Zero sympathy. I have zero sympathy for both this site and for the users whose information was stolen. You all deserve it, for being selfish, amoral animals.
vtlynch 11y ago
When signing up for Ashley Madison, you can indicate you are only interested in a "Cyber Affair"
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. What about those Tor sites that were recently busted. Yes, the content was far worse, but if we argue that usage of a site can be bad enough to warrant a loss in deserving your privacy protected, the difference between the two becomes only a difference in determining what is 'bad enough' and the argument you presented, that it doesn't matter since privacy should be protected anyways, no longer applies (as the people who are arguing it 'serves them right' are disagreeing with you only in terms that the content of this site is bad enough to warrant the same loss of any rights to site usage privacy). Please note I am not saying the content of the two sites are equal. I am only saying that the wrongness/harmfulness of the content (which is clearly different) isn't taken into account by the point presented here.
- tptacek 11y ago
  False equivalence. Adultery is not a crime. Trafficking in child pornography is. Nobody has a right to private criminality.
  - polarix 11y ago
    And nothing done entirely in consensual privacy should be a crime.
  - caskance 11y ago
    There is a disappointingly large number of "privacy" advocates on this site who disagree with that.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    So in places where it was a crime, the argument doesn't apply? It seems quite odd to base a moral argument using legal definitions of criminality as those definitions do change. Consider the absurdity of applying such reasons to a place where certain political protests are illegal. Also, the argument presented does not make a distinction between legal and illegal usage.
tptacek 11y ago
And it's not just this site. Basically, we're a cheering section for crimes committed against people we don't like, and we'll even put effort into valorizing criminals and demonizing victims in order to make our rooting interests simpler. See, for example, the lionization of Jeremy Hammond and the fantastical elevation of Stratfor, a third-tier foreign policy pundit shop, into a shadowy global intelligence firm. Want an uncomfortable thought to think? The breakin and doc-dump from Hacking Team: also probably immoral.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  You can't see a big difference in morality in hacking Hacking Team and hacking a dating site? Hacking Team was literally poisoning computing, and brewing novel, secret poisons. I bet most Europeans are having a chuckle at the structure of American morality in the Ashley Madison case. So much hypocrisy. Huh. Maybe both hacks will result in more realism.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It isn't remotely difficult for me to understand why people don't like HT and Ashley Madison. I don't like either of them myself. However, millions and millions of people like Planned Parenthood even less than they like Hacking Team.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      People opposed to abortion have a particularly virulent fervor in their opposition, but we're currently seeing Planned Parenthood see off a smear campaign. People want legal abortion even if they can't admit it. If Planned Parenthood got hacked... then what?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
copsarebastards 11y ago
Yeah, releasing all the data paints with pretty broad strokes, and has more implications than just outing cheaters to their partners. 1. It releases the data to everyone, not just to a cheater's partner. I'll buy that a cheater deserves to be outed to their partner, but to their boss? Their psycho ex? And that's not even thinking of the person who was cheated on: do you really think you would want everyone to know that your spouse was cheating on you? 2. Not all the users of the site are cheaters. Some are just role playing, some were just curious, some were probably trying to catch their partners cheating. Ashley Madison's database doesn't make any of these distinctions: everyone gets the scarlet letter.

jessriedel 11y ago

All parties involved can be at fault. And lots of people will think that privacy, while very important, is not quite at the same level as marital fidelity. It's like hearing that a vicious murderous mob boss had his leg shot off. Yes, the person who took his leg ought to be sent to jail, but we might not have much sympathy for the mob boss since his terrible actions led directly to those consequences.

anotherangrydev 11y ago
Typical. Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) Equal rights! (Except for people that are not like me!)
- jaawn 11y ago
  I don't think this argument really applies. It would be one thing if the site was devoted to assisting "open relationships," but it isn't. It is specifically a service to assist people in "cheating" on their partners (with the assumption being that the partners don't know and wouldn't approve). So, because of this specific detail, I don't think the "people not like me should be treated equally!" argument applies. The betrayal is intrinsic, not a matter of opinion.
  - harlanlewis 11y ago
    Judging other people's relationships is a losing game, no matter how objectively you label qualifiers. Few things are more opaque than the unspoken space between other minds, with their unique mix of shared + independent history, context, hopes, doubts, violence, love. But hey, good luck drawing lines where you choose.
    - ArtDev 11y ago
      The sites sole purpose is inherently harmful. The ads speak for themselves: https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads https://www.google.com/search?q=ashlymadison+ads
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Inherently harmful to whom? PS Those ads are awful.
      - vectorjohn 11y ago
        This is not a factual statement. It's your opinion. It isn't up to you to decide this for other people.
        jaawn 11y ago
        Its intent is to do something which harms. I don't think the infinitesimal collection of people who want their partners to "cheat" on them justify the flexibility you're implying. Basically, what you are saying, is that some people are not harmed by being cheated on, and therefore it isn't fair for us to judge the actions of the sites users, because maybe all or most of them are in a situation where there is no harm. I think the simpler explanation (and likely more accurate one) is that in most cases, each AM user has at least one partner which is being harmed by the user's actions and use of the site. Being accepting and tolerant of different types of relationships and desires is a separate issue. The site was created for, and is marketed towards, people who want to cheat (in the traditional, harmful sense) on their current partners.
- unprepare 11y ago
  Typical. Free Speech! (has nothing to do with government censorship or banning of speech of any kind) Equal rights! (has nothing to do with people being granted rights equally by the government, or those rights being applied unevenly) Is someone here promoting censorship or banning of a type of speech? Is someone of Class B being persecuted for a crime Class A would not be persecuted for? If the answer to both questions is no, then we are not discussing free speech or equal rights. Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) is neither anti-free speech nor anti-equal rights. Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected?
  - jasonlotito 11y ago
    Oh, I can play "snarky HN comment" too! Ahem... Typical. Privacy! (until people I disagree with have their privacy taken). The Free Speech/Equal Rights remarks weren't about this case. The GP's comment was alluding to them and comparing them to Privacy, which was what was being discussed. Your remarks about Free Speech and Equal Rights are pointless and immaterial. > Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) Just curious, what crime did they commit in signing up for AM? What proof do you have that they did sign up? What proof do you have that the released data will be accurate? What contract did they violate by signing up for AM? I'm curious to know what proof you have besides assumptions to make a bold statement that anyone mentioned in the released data is immediately guilty of something. > Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected? Do you think it would be better for us to find people guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Free speech! (Until I hear something I don't like!) What limitations do you think should be put on the exchange of information (words, thoughts, concepts, pictures, videos, executable, etc.). For almost everyone I've ever asked, the answer was never 'none'. They may start there, but soon after I started listing more concrete examples I find one that makes them take back that 'none'.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    You didn't ask me, but the correct answer is 'none.'
    - eropple 11y ago
      Cool, so it's alright for me to air your dirtiest of laundry? I'll remember that.
      - dublinben 11y ago
        Even if I took umbrage to that, how is censorship legislation going to stop you?
      - vectorjohn 11y ago
        It is perfectly legal, yes. You still are an asshole if you do it.
    - Retra 11y ago
      You realize that you are advocating for single-point-of-failure, right? That if I learn anything at all about you, that I should be free to share it with whomever I like in any way I want, and for any reason? Do you honestly believe that you are so good at guarding information that you have nothing to fear from it's free propagation? And that this is not only true for you, but for everyone?
      - dublinben 11y ago
        Would censorship legislation prevent you from doing so, if you really wanted to? We should spend more effort removing the potential harm that unwanted information disclosure can cause, rather than running around plugging leaks and jailing whistleblowers.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
john_b 11y ago
Except that shooting someone is generally illegal, whereas having an affair is not. Allocate your sympathy as you wish, but don't pretend that a person deserves to be the victim of a crime because you or anyone else find their behavior distasteful.
- josinalvo 11y ago
  To cheat, to break your word given to a life partner, is not just distasteful. It is wrong. It makes the world a darker place, and not only to you and your partner (and that is what wrong means) I know this kind of statement is viewed with distrust. And I see why this is so. But I think some moral discussion might be good (rather than just the bland 'lets not judge') First, I am not saying that I think all marriages need to be monogamical or 'till death'. Both ideas are probably bad on average (i.e.: make the world a darker place as well, cause needless suffering). I, for one, think that promissing monogamy is a bad idea. But to break the promice of monogamy is, indeed, bad. First, it is inherently unfair: One partner (Pa) might be resisting temptations, to the benefit of the other (Pb). Pb gets benefits from increased marriage security, increase sexual availability from Pa, increased emotional availability... But does not offer the same. I mean, it would be clear that withdrawing all the money from a joint savings account is bad, right? That is the same thing... One side is doing a lot of effort to keep a mutual benefit working... To cheat is a form of exploitation.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    The time, place, and manner of sex or other activity that occurs between two consenting adults is none of my business whatsoever unless one of those people is my spouse. When one of those people is my spouse and the other is not me, then my problem is with my spouse, not with any website or other instrument used to facilitate the infidelity. What meaning would an agreement such as marriage have if cheating were literally impossible? >But I think some moral discussion might be good Let's discuss how we can keep from inflicting our own personal morals on those who do not share our moral philosophies; lest someone show up here and one-up us all with an even better morality than the one we already have.

amyjess 11y ago

> Secondly, I'd wager that many of the users sign up to use Ashley Madison for the thrill of the idea and probably aren't actually cheaters themselves or hooking up with other cheaters. A lot of the users are probably into the idea of roll playing or something similar. The site charges money to use most of its features. The people who just signed up out of sheer curiosity and have no interest in using it probably aren't paying customers, and as such, don't need to provide personal information.

iopq 11y ago
How about the people who signed up and did pay... but are not ACTUALLY in a relationship with anyone else?

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

The arm-chair morality here is mindblowing. Reminds me of when homosexuals developed aids in the 80s; "Serves them right." I think people need to really stop it with the revenge fantasies for behaviors they dislike. If anything, AM reflects something that might change in society, namely if life-long monogamy makes sense. Many would argue that of course it does, but not too long ago these were the same people calling homosexually immoral as well. Personally, I find monogamy questionable and from the few discussions I've had on this subject, many feel obligated to be monogamous only because of social convention. Considering the divorce rate, it seems to be the idea of marriage as this lifelong romantic bond may not be compatible with a modern lifestyle. Some of the happiest and most fulfilled people I know are on their second or third marriage or have non-traditional lifestyles in regards to the social contract they have with their SO(s). Frankly, its none of our business is someone is cheating. Why do we suddenly feel the need to be busybodies in that regard? There's this sad kind of "I can fuck with you with my hax0r skills and report this to your wife" neckbeardism at play here. I wish we lived in a society where people minded their own business. Funny how HN's libertarianism takes a backseat to its largely Christian-Judeo moral roots. I don't see how cheating must compel someone to whistleblow. It just seems like a nerd powertrip to me. My only issue here is that sex work is somehow still illegal and that means the ladies on AM can be, and probably are, victimized by pimps, human trafficking, etc. Shame that this narrative won't make the press but "OMG CHEATERS" will.

Karunamon 11y ago
If anything, AM reflects something that might change in society, namely if life-long monogamy makes sense. The time for that discussion is long before one decides of their own free will to take part in life-long monogamy. Once you've made that promise, and then renege on it (a harmful act in of itself), there is a second person in that equation who is being harmed. Are innocent people likely to be harmed by this? Of course. But AM's entire reason for existing is perpetuation of marital infidelity. Given that AM's advertising emphasizes the "go have an affair!" business, we can reasonably assume that most of this company's clientele are people who are in committed relationships. I find it very hard to be bothered by the fact that the majority of that site's customer base will be called to account for grave lies to their spouse. (I was going to make an admonishment to stop downvoting the guy above me, but then they added the completely unwarranted "neckbeardism" remark.. knock yourselves out, I guess) (And then they added the further completely unwarranted remark about "judeo-christian" values... jeez dude...)

aetherson 11y ago

Lots of people who use the site may be "innocent" (because they didn't actually do anything, or because they're in an open marriage or whatever). And even people who are to one degree or other "guilty" are not as a class to be declared guilty and given all the same punishment. That said, while I can't necessarily judge any given user of the site, I'm pretty confident that the people running the site are contributing to net misery in the world. And certainly I think that it would fall within the realm of justice for them to be (at least!) forced to turn the site off. But I don't think that's the most likely outcome.

unchocked 11y ago
I don't see how enabling affairs contributes to the net misery of the world. A civilized society ought to move away from your sort of moralizing judgement about relations between consenting adults, or those who facilitate them. Adults are free to fuck: they are happier for doing it.
- aetherson 11y ago
  Whatever you think that a civilized society "ought" to move away from, then fact of the matter is that the rest of society doesn't agree with you. And, in fact, married people are (typically) not "free to fuck," and when they do fuck extramaritally, they are (typically) not happier for doing it, and their spouses are (even more typically) not happier for them doing it. This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.
  - stdgy 11y ago
    Is there significant evidence that people who engage in affairs are more likely to be unhappy than happy after having engaged in them? I don't doubt the claim, but evidence would be appreciated.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    "the rest of society doesn't agree with you" And that is a very poor benchmark for establishing one's own morals. Let's not forget that until very recently, "the rest of society" didn't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. In the not too distant past, the "rest of society" didn't agree that women should be allowed to vote, that interracial couples should be allowed to marry, and that blacks weren't considered whole people. In determining the validity of one's vitriol towards another people, there are far better metrics for determining the extent than whether or not the "rest of society" agrees with me. I, personally, am not comfortable with our society's complete ban on polygamy. Even though "the rest of society" seems perfectly fine to impose their morality upon the polygamists, I am uncomfortable joining in.

netcan 11y ago

Adding to that, we need to be especially wary of righteous belligerence targeting sexual immorality. We have an ancient and rarely broken tradition of ruining people by accusing them of sexual misbehavior. Infidelity, promiscuity, homosexuality. OScar Wilde & Alan Turing come to mind, from an endless list.

amyjess 11y ago
As an LGBT person (both L and T), please don't compare me to cheaters. We're nothing alike, and I find it deeply insulting when people compare cheating with sexual orientation.
- genericuser 11y ago
  The similarity would extend so far as the negative views society has for people in any of those groups. In all cases members of society currently hold or have held in the past a view that these behaviors even when not having a negative effect on any individual are something which 'erode the moral fabric of society'. It is not a similarity in the groups themselves, but in how they are regarded or have been regarded by others. Forcing ones morals upon others in instances where there is no harm to anyone(while arguable in many cases of cheating, is certainly true in some cases), would be the common thread. For everyone who identifies as some sort of Poly or other group it is probably painful to have members of other groups, which are unfortunately still discriminated against, view their differences from the accepted moral norm in a negative light like this. People in general want to be accepted for who they are, and ideally judged by a moral code similar to the one they themselves hold. At least that is my view on the situation. I realize cheating is often not a mutual agreement between all parties, and in those cases a person is being harmed and there is reason for society to view it negatively, however that is not always the situation, and in these cases I think other groups who have been discriminated against recognizing the similarity would be valuable to humanity in general.
- bonif 11y ago
  You wouldn't find it insulting, if you actually understood what he/she said

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I agree with the sentiment that the nature of the site doesn't condone the action. I note that by its nature, it is a very attractive target for thieves as that data could be the basis for extortion. It also might be used in political campaigns or against other public figures. But at the end of the day, it is another example of how organized crime has moved into the "net" and set up shop. Which combined with nation states using the "net" to achieve political ends, be it espionage, surveillance, or intimidation, means for those of us who remember a time before the internet, it has completely fulfilled all of the worst predictions of what would happen with it. Now we need to fix it, and we need to keep our own nation-states from preventing us from fixing it.

cmyr 11y ago
Why do we assume this is organized crime? It seems to be more a vigilante then a 'for-profit' crime.
- aaronem 11y ago
  Indeed; you'd think that, had it been done with intent to extort users or otherwise make prolonged use of the stolen information, they wouldn't have been so obvious about having broken in to begin with.
imglorp 11y ago
You can now view nation states, organized crime, and single actors as approximately all equivalent in capability, motivation, and disregard for any laws. So the distinction is not important. Any of those actors can, will, and have used such data to meet their goals.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  I agree. I think state actors obviously have much stronger technical capabilities and can operate with impunity, but a motivated actor can certainly achieve nefarious ends in most cases. Especially against a large public website where the attack surface is massive and the potential of a breach would provide a wealth of privileged information that would provide substantial motivation.

davemel37 11y ago

I agree that privacy should be protected and its unfair if personal info gets exposed...but there is one simple fact that remains. If you used the site and were exposed it is not the exposure that caused you damage it is your actions that caused you damage and ultimately the buck stops with you.

lukas099 11y ago

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people saying that are insecure about their own relationships.

cmdrfred 11y ago
Exactly, as someone who has zero worries about my partners fidelity it doesn't bother me one bit what other people do.
- lukas099 11y ago
  I think you're being sarcastic? I'm just saying that I've seen people get overly-emotional about these things before. Cheating is bad, yes, but let's not make it disproportionately so.

robgibbons 11y ago

I feel the exact opposite. Moral justice is on the side of the hackers. This website, and all the others like it, only exist to profit while helping people destroy their own lives, in addition their loved ones' lives. Zero sympathy. I have zero sympathy for both this site and for the users whose information was stolen. You all deserve it, for being selfish, amoral animals.

vtlynch 11y ago

When signing up for Ashley Madison, you can indicate you are only interested in a "Cyber Affair"

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>I don't think that it matters that this is a "cheating" site, your privacy should still be guarded and it's not fair that all these people are being exposed. What about those Tor sites that were recently busted. Yes, the content was far worse, but if we argue that usage of a site can be bad enough to warrant a loss in deserving your privacy protected, the difference between the two becomes only a difference in determining what is 'bad enough' and the argument you presented, that it doesn't matter since privacy should be protected anyways, no longer applies (as the people who are arguing it 'serves them right' are disagreeing with you only in terms that the content of this site is bad enough to warrant the same loss of any rights to site usage privacy). Please note I am not saying the content of the two sites are equal. I am only saying that the wrongness/harmfulness of the content (which is clearly different) isn't taken into account by the point presented here.

tptacek 11y ago
False equivalence. Adultery is not a crime. Trafficking in child pornography is. Nobody has a right to private criminality.
- polarix 11y ago
  And nothing done entirely in consensual privacy should be a crime.
- caskance 11y ago
  There is a disappointingly large number of "privacy" advocates on this site who disagree with that.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  So in places where it was a crime, the argument doesn't apply? It seems quite odd to base a moral argument using legal definitions of criminality as those definitions do change. Consider the absurdity of applying such reasons to a place where certain political protests are illegal. Also, the argument presented does not make a distinction between legal and illegal usage.

tptacek 11y ago

And it's not just this site. Basically, we're a cheering section for crimes committed against people we don't like, and we'll even put effort into valorizing criminals and demonizing victims in order to make our rooting interests simpler. See, for example, the lionization of Jeremy Hammond and the fantastical elevation of Stratfor, a third-tier foreign policy pundit shop, into a shadowy global intelligence firm. Want an uncomfortable thought to think? The breakin and doc-dump from Hacking Team: also probably immoral.

Zigurd 11y ago
You can't see a big difference in morality in hacking Hacking Team and hacking a dating site? Hacking Team was literally poisoning computing, and brewing novel, secret poisons. I bet most Europeans are having a chuckle at the structure of American morality in the Ashley Madison case. So much hypocrisy. Huh. Maybe both hacks will result in more realism.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It isn't remotely difficult for me to understand why people don't like HT and Ashley Madison. I don't like either of them myself. However, millions and millions of people like Planned Parenthood even less than they like Hacking Team.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    People opposed to abortion have a particularly virulent fervor in their opposition, but we're currently seeing Planned Parenthood see off a smear campaign. People want legal abortion even if they can't admit it. If Planned Parenthood got hacked... then what?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

copsarebastards 11y ago

Yeah, releasing all the data paints with pretty broad strokes, and has more implications than just outing cheaters to their partners. 1. It releases the data to everyone, not just to a cheater's partner. I'll buy that a cheater deserves to be outed to their partner, but to their boss? Their psycho ex? And that's not even thinking of the person who was cheated on: do you really think you would want everyone to know that your spouse was cheating on you? 2. Not all the users of the site are cheaters. Some are just role playing, some were just curious, some were probably trying to catch their partners cheating. Ashley Madison's database doesn't make any of these distinctions: everyone gets the scarlet letter.