Where's the wrong here?

Hi all. The question really is as simple, or complicated, as the title.

Ashley Madison infidelity site's customer data stolen

Customer data has been stolen from Ashley Madison, a dating website for married people who wish to cheat on their spouse.

The hackers said they had obtained information including "all the customers' secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions".

The site's operator confirmed there had been an "intrusion" but not its extent.

One security expert said a small percentage of the site's user account data had been published online.

The hackers, who called themselves the Impact Team, said they had managed to steal the real names and addresses of the site's users, including those who had previously paid to "delete" their accounts.

a reply to: JAK

LOL,

Blackmail and Extortion.

The hackers have a goldmine, especially if any of those fools are in a public position.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: JAK

LOL,

Blackmail and Extortion.

The hackers have a goldmine, especially if any of those fools are in a public position.

That's the more likely scenario. They have the data of public figures that are more or less known. This would be catastrophic to Madison's business model and could drive them right into Chapter 11.

I don't' think they would care all that much if it was just the general user base.

~Tenth

a reply to: JAK

nvm

a reply to: JAK

The cynic in me says it is a Christian group that hacked the site merely to threaten people with the "if you keep using this we'll expose you". Could be nothing more than a plot to get people to behave they way they think you should by threatening to expose your secrets to the world.

originally posted by: truthster013
a reply to: JAK

The cynic in me says it is a Christian group that hacked the site merely to threaten people with the "if you keep using this we'll expose you". Could be nothing more than a plot to get people to behave they way they think you should by threatening to expose your secrets to the world.

That is one hell of a stretch and I have never heard of any group like this.

I would guess the usual foreign heist for money.


Send the email, Give us $ or else kind of thing.

If they can get 20,000 people to give them $50 each to keep quiet.... Jackpot.

a reply to: JAK

If you're already taking the risk of cheating on your spouse, then looks good on you to get caught (not you op but the people on the site)

It needn't be either/ or.

Both are morally debatable though both are also supplying a demand.

Human nature is not flawless.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

LOL,

Why would anyone be so foolish as to:

1) Not use fake name / information
2) Not use disposable email address (like a webmail) that is not linked to anything else, nothing else period.
3) Not use a burner cell phone #
4) Not pay for everything with a pre-paid visa gift card that isn't linked to you.
5) Post pictures that can be traced back to you.


I mean c'mon, if the site itself is trying to fleece you for money to "delete" your stuff, that should tell you something.


Just common sense, if someone has something to hide, at least take precautions on trying to hide it dumb asses... LOL

I find it hard to believe that people are this stupid... well... maybe not.

a reply to: infolurker

If there was statistical analysis it would probably include a percentage of those that aren't traceable and of those that are varying percentages of:

Couldn't care less

The possibility of being 'caught' adding to their 'thrill'

Spontaneous decisions

It wasn't considered a factor

They didn't consider it a risk to anything

Stupidity

Too much trust in web security

So it's a philosophical question, then?

Off hand I'd say the first five words of the story-

"Customer data has been stolen..."

That would be wrong.

a reply to: threeeyesopen

If you're already taking the risk of cheating on your spouse, then looks good on you to get caught (not you op but the people on the site)

But then that's giving approval to not respect people's free-will and force beliefs on others.

originally posted by: truthster013
Could be nothing more than a plot to get people to behave they way they think you should by threatening to expose your secrets to the world.

That's an interesting sentence to consider.

a reply to: yeahright
So, the actual theft? The main focus of story itself is... the wrong? A wrong? The only one of importance?

a reply to: arpgme
Nice point.


In consideration of the post by truthster013: Would the actions of the users then amount to... how to term this... due to their nature, illigimate secrets? Secrets kept not for the sake of what could be widely regarded as reasonable privacy but the hiding of something about which there is a fear over the judgement of others. Then I wonder though if there are any secrets which are, ultimately, not kept for that reason? Where is the dividing line between something private and something secret?

I'm left with questions on all three parties: The hackers (motivation for and then weighed against the act), the site owners (profiting from adultery) and the users (adulterers). It could be said that there's fault enough to share but that there's one illegal act (motivation unknown, granted) against two acts which the majority probably view as objectionable and would surely have a reasonable grievance against were they they innocent party being cheated on, leads me to ask: What or where is the wrong? Why might it seem so? Why might others view it differently? Who is less wrong in the story and who in their answer?

Three parties, all guilty of something. If the intention of the hackers was to prevent innocent people getting hurt (no matter how naively noble it may be considered) then, does the legality of their course of action mean that the letter of the law rightfully trumps ethical considerations? Is the point of laws to encourage a level functionality within society and if so don't they then have to present an aspect of fairness to be acceptable to the majority? Is fairness an ethical consideration? Are ethical standards simply personally pleasurable stances?


Yea, a lot of questions. I get confused very easily. Feel free to grab just one but no points for being smart and in answer to the question posed by the title simply offering a link to this post. :p

a reply to: JAK

Well, in the words of that sage philosopher Clint Eastwood in the movie Unforgiven, "We've all got it coming, kid".

You went too deep on me there, JAK. A perusal of the story doesn't tell me anything about the motivations of the individuals. Maybe someone joining has no intent to cheat on a spouse, but is just doing what a lot of people do on-line and leave it on-line. I think it's a leap bigger than I'm willing to take to assume they're all 'adulterers'. If we're going to start throwing stones at people 'profiting from adultery' that's a helluva big set of people. You might as well pass a law that prohibits unescorted females from sitting at a bar (which was actually a law not all that long ago). Not to mention, whatever profit the site generates doesn't require any actual 'adultery' on the part of the members. What I see as the ultimate 'wrong' is the theft of information. There's no excuse for that in this situation.

Now as an exercise in thought, we can build a case that all concerned are guilty of something. But then, everyone is. The question to me is, what sorts of guilty do we as a society want to punish? And by 'guilty' I mean due process in a court of law. For me, it's the hackers. For the others, as long as they're consenting adults, it's none of my business (unless it is, if it were MY spouse).

Moral condemnation is another thing, and whomever has the moral superiority to do that, knock yourselves out.

a reply to: yeahright

Thanks for indulging me yeahright.

The adulterers label was attached in consideration of the statement that it was "a dating website for married people who wish to cheat on their spouse." (taking that as being accurate for arguments sake)* but you bring up an interesting point regarding on-line behaviour. The term adultery with its physical aspect is not in the article, I put it here and perhaps that was a very bad move on my part but now with you highlighting it I'm wondering:

originally posted by: yeahright

Maybe someone joining has no intent to cheat on a spouse, but is just doing what a lot of people do on-line and leave it on-line.

Well, described as "a dating website for married people who wish to cheat on their spouse" the question becomes: Is it possible for someone to cheat on their partner purely on-line? Does it require physical contact? Should virtual reality/contact impact opinion on that?

If the answers to the first two questions are respectively yes and no then the site, while legal, is still open to the criticism that even if the couple do not have physical contact, by providing a platform they at least enable behaviour which is directly responsible for hurting innocent people*. After all, the person getting 'cheated on' is, by definition, not consenting. (Informed consent in this most personal area does seem to trump all else.) I'll say here that even generously viewing the hackers actions in the best possible light I am not one to glorify vigilante justice. The consideration usually results in conjuring up Terry Pratchett's words about the IQ of a mob being inversely proportional to it's numbers. At the same time though I don't feel sympathy for a company whose profits are based upon enabling... let's call it infidelity. Betrayal, harm to an innocent. So, again for arguments sake generously viewing the hackers actions in the best possible light: Is it wrong? (Does that mean morally unacceptable?) I can resolutely answer to both: I'm not sure.

So, I have trouble with the action of the hackers but also with the purpose and users of the site. Yet I also don't think two wrongs make a right. (Yea, I'm not a candidate for unquestioning belief in my own position. Frequently because I am not entirely sure where that is.)

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: threeeyesopen

If you're already taking the risk of cheating on your spouse, then looks good on you to get caught (not you op but the people on the site)

But then that's giving approval to not respect people's free-will and force beliefs on others.

Anyone can have an open commitment instead. The free will to be a liar is no excuse in a closed commitment. If you make a commitment and make a symbiotic relationship according to rules both agree to, and you have told people you follow a set of beliefs, then straying from those beliefs is being deceitful. If you cannot handle the commitment do not enter into it or discuss changing the rules of the relationship when you notice you cannot keep up with the commitment.

I'm not sure there's any "right" here.

1.) People cheating on their spouses.

2.) People facilitating/encouraging adultery for money.

3.) People committing theft of sensitive information.

No real "right" anywhere, so they can all really sort of stew in their own juices. Best not to touch any of it with a 10' pole.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Yes, it's a shame people show no integrity and lie like this, but that is still no excuse to hurt other people's lives by playing moral authority.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Yes, it's a shame people show no integrity and lie like this, but that is still no excuse to hurt other people's lives by playing moral authority.

The truth might hurt but it is deceit in the beginning that caused the hurt. Do not shot the messenger.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Yes, it's a shame people show no integrity and lie like this, but that is still no excuse to hurt other people's lives by playing moral authority.

You missed the part where they already hurt their lives just by participating in the first place, and it's a stretch to assume that the people who attacked the site are doing so through purely moral motivations. For all you know, they are former customers who discovered their information isn't automatically deleted even after they pay for it, so they decided to take matters into their own hands to try to cover up their infidelities.

There are more possibilities than just the assumed moral ones.