Ashley Madison hacked

There was a link but it contained mal-ware. The link below is an archive
https://archive.is/FCGOk
All dem hoes need to go somewhere else now.

Edit: Taken from the Wikipedia page on Ashley Madison

The company received significant attention on July 15, 2015, after hackers stole all of its customer data—including names, addresses, sexual fantasies and credit card information—and threatened to post all the data online if Ashley Madison and fellow site Avid Life Media site EstablishedMen.com were not permanently closed. By July 22, the first names of customers were released by hackers.

 

[Marvin]

John McAfee claims it was an inside job but a lone female employee:
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/john-mcaf...one-female-who-worked-avid-life-media-1516833
People are saying the article is bullshit (except for Gawker, who are complaining that it's sexist) but I thought I'd post it anyway.
Personally I think the reasoning that the person was female is stupid anyway because I'm pretty sure they put a lot in their statements to purposely mislead people. The anger toward men, the mention of Valentine's Day (though there are actually a ton of reasons why that could be said by a male in this context - maybe a parent got caught cheating then) it just seems like they've gone out of their way to make it sound like a woman scorned. Also, I'm pretty sure in one statement they had some pretty poor English. So it's a woman who left Avid Life in July and doesn't write English very well? Gee that conveniently narrows it down.
If he's right about it being an inside job, that brings up some very interesting possibilities, but some people are saying that's also bullshit. My guess is it's a person, probably male but perhaps still a woman, who left Avid Media and has since moved safely overseas. So a former employee who now lives in a country that doesn't extradite and doesn't have a whole lot of AM users.

His analysis of the acquired data is pretty on target.

Like, even if your security is lax as shit, you really have to go out of your way to make it easy to get all of that disjointed data together that McAfee says was in the leak.

Of course, his interpretation of the manifesto is obviously very iffy.

 

[AnOminous]

His analysis of the acquired data is pretty on target.

Remarkably lucid, considering most of what I've read from him the past few years has been either obviously drug-addled or delusional. But his central points about the data itself are spot-on. No hacker would have bothered getting all this other crap or been in a position to get it. It's pretty likely to be an insider.

Where I think it's shaky is in assuming the manifesto material wasn't, possibly, written to distract from the real perpetrator by creating a bogus impression. It just seems all too well-rehearsed as someone angry about the practice of adultery when someone who actually worked there is unlikely to give a fuck about that.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Apparently, there's going to be a lawsuit: http://time.com/4007374/ashley-madison-578-million-lawsuit-canada/

Read it in the news yesterday and I got to ask, isn't $538 million just a tad too much?

 

[Le Bateleur]

Apparently, there's going to be a lawsuit: http://time.com/4007374/ashley-madison-578-million-lawsuit-canada/

Read it in the news yesterday and I got to ask, isn't $538 million just a tad too much?

You can't put a price on butthurt.

 

[AnOminous]

Apparently, there's going to be a lawsuit: http://time.com/4007374/ashley-madison-578-million-lawsuit-canada/

Read it in the news yesterday and I got to ask, isn't $538 million just a tad too much?

Suppose only a million of the 35 million or so users paid the fraudulent "delete me" fee of about $20. That's $20 million just for the fraud. That's not even counting the predictable damages that are a consequence of their failure to delete the material. Then there's the fact that when given warning that all this material was going to be made public, they shit themselves and did nothing.

It's too much because they'll never collect that much, but pretty much anything that doesn't involve everyone at AM being publicly impaled and eviscerated is probably not enough.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Suppose only a million of the 35 million or so users paid the fraudulent "delete me" fee of about $20. That's $20 million just for the fraud. That's not even counting the predictable damages that are a consequence of their failure to delete the material. Then there's the fact that when given warning that all this material was going to be made public, they shit themselves and did nothing.

It's too much because they'll never collect that much, but pretty much anything that doesn't involve everyone at AM being publicly impaled and eviscerated is probably not enough.

Problem though- Canada's abolished the death penalty for decades now. And those public executions, even if they were sanctioned, would still be illegal.

So the lawsuit's about all they can get, aside from them getting long jail sentences and hope they get ass-raped and shanked while serving them.

 

[Le Bateleur]

Is there any chance that the American government might decide that the non-functional paid delete function is fraud and get all extraditey? If anyone deserves to grow old and die in an American prison with only Silk Road's Sped Pirate Roberts for company, it's Noel Biderman.

 

[KatsuKitty]

Is there any chance that the American government might decide that the non-functional paid delete function is fraud and get all extraditey? If anyone deserves to grow old and die in an American prison with only Silk Road's Sped Pirate Roberts for company, it's Noel Biderman.

Not that big a case to pursue extradition.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

I'm mighty confused as to why anyone who was looking for an extramarital affair would willingly hand over their credit card to a service that could have always just blackmailed them.

Does the $20.00 "deletion fee" count as blackmail?

 

[AnOminous]

I'm mighty confused as to why anyone who was looking for an extramarital affair would willingly hand over their credit card to a service that could have always just blackmailed them.

Does the $20.00 "deletion fee" count as blackmail?

IMO, yes. It was a form of extortion, in addition to being fraud. The actual argument for that being the case would be long and convoluted, and it would be a case of first impression, so that's really just my personal opinion, but I do think such practices should be outright illegal.

The EU's Privacy Directive would outright prohibit practices like this, again IMO.

 

[Le Bateleur]

IMO, yes. It was a form of extortion, in addition to being fraud. The actual argument for that being the case would be long and convoluted, and it would be a case of first impression, so that's really just my personal opinion, but I do think such practices should be outright illegal.

The EU's Privacy Directive would outright prohibit practices like this, again IMO.

It's explicitly contrary to the UK's Data Protection Act.

 

[AnOminous]

It's explicitly contrary to the UK's Data Protection Act.

Yes, and the UK's DPA was passed specifically to bring the UK into compliance with the EU's directive on the same data issue.

 

[PeteyCoffee]

99.9926% of users were men.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

It makes sense.

Once a married woman becomes 'unsatisfied' with the relationship she just needs to wait until her divorce goes through and then she can have sex legitimately with as many guys as she wants and also maybe confiscate ~50% of her ex's past and future earnings and keep custody of the kids. Meanwhile, she is greatly honored for 'her courage and determination in being a valiant single mother just trying to do what's best for her kids.' At that point, she could spend 10 hours a day fucking guys if she wanted to and still be more successful and more respected than when she was a married woman.

The married man who becomes 'unsatisfied', on the other hand, often has to choose between giving up ~50% of everything he otherwise would have earned for the rest of his life (and also be considered a deadbeat) in exchange for it being socially acceptable for him to date, or not getting caught having an affair. If I had to, I would definitely choose the latter. Of course, I'm never getting married, so it shouldn't be a problem. (Unless the changing political climate paired with common law marriage somehow bites my ass.)

In other words, married women are encouraged to divorce their husbands - both by social pressures (to be a 'satisfied, good, cool, strong and independent woman') and to be able to turn the man into her ~50% alimony slave. If the woman is caught cheating she more than likely forfeits this. (And is instead treated socially like the devil.)

Of course, this legal stuff varies dramatically by jurisdiction. In some places, women also have to pay large alimonies. Although the social pressures are fairly consistent.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

99.9926% of users were men.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

It makes sense.

Married women are encouraged to divorce their husbands - both by social pressures (to be a 'satisfied, cool, strong and independent woman' who 'doesn't need no man') and to be able to confiscate ~50% of the ex's past and future income. If the woman is caught cheating she more than likely forfeits this. (And is instead treated like the devil.)

Once she becomes 'unsatisfied' with the relationship she just needs to wait until her divorce goes through and then she can have sex with as many guys as she wants and also maybe make her ex into her ~50% alimony slave and keep custody of the kids. Meanwhile, she is greatly honored and revered for 'her courage and determination in being a valiant single mother just trying to do what's best for her kids.' At that point, she could spend 10 hours a day fucking guys if she wanted to and still be more successful and more respected than when she was a married woman.

Married men who become 'unsatisfied', on the other hand, often have to choose between giving up ~50% of everything they otherwise would have gotten for the rest of their lives (and also being considered deadbeats) in exchange for it being socially acceptable for them to date, or not getting caught having an affair. If I had to, I would definitely choose the latter. Of course, I'm never getting married, so it shouldn't be a problem. (Unless the changing political climate paired with common law marriage somehow bites my ass.)

Of course, this legal stuff varies dramatically by jurisdiction. In some places, women also have to pay large alimonies. Although the social pressures are fairly consistent.

That's why men should never get married (but not be assholes about it like sandman)

 

[PeteyCoffee]

That's why men should never get married (but not be assholes about it like sandman)

I'm concerned about common law marriage. Basically, in many states, the courts have the (largely forgotten) power to retroactively declare two people married - if they've spent a 'considerable' albeit completely unspecified amount of time living in the same building. I'm afraid, if men stop getting married, feminists will co-opt these very old laws and start forcing them to. I don't think it's going to happen. But with fifteen or twenty years of SJW escalation, who knows.

I'm watching the matter closely - if it ever looks ripe, I'm coming out of the closet as a precaution.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

the courts have the (largely forgotten) power to retroactively declare two people married - if they've spent a 'considerable' albeit completely unspecified amount of time living in the same building

Don't live in the same building. Gives you economic freedom and your own space. Also ensure that there is no record of your relationship to get plausible deniability in case common law marriage extends to any long term relationship

 

[melty]

You really need to cover all your bases here. Coming out of the closet isn't enough any more. Feminists can and will put cameras in your apartment to use as evidence when they divorce rape you, so you and your reverse beard need to be "convincing" if you know what I mean. Also try adopting a child, that makes it look really serious. If nothing else works, become a tranny. That actually gives you more oppression points than regular women so you'll surely win.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm concerned about common law marriage.

It's been virtually done away with as an archaic remnant of a bygone era.

Where does it even exist any more?

Oh. . .a quick trip to legalzoom later.

States that do recognize common law marriage include the following: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia (if created prior to 1997), Idaho (if created before 1996), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only), Ohio (if created prior to 10/1991), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (if created before 9/2003), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Same-sex relationships or marriages are never recognized as common law.

Note, many of the places where it still does exist are slowly doing away with it and not recognizing new ones.

 

[KingGeedorah]

99.9926% of users were men.

http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944

It makes sense.

Once a married woman becomes 'unsatisfied' with the relationship she just needs to wait until her divorce goes through and then she can have sex legitimately with as many guys as she wants and also maybe confiscate ~50% of her ex's past and future earnings and keep custody of the kids. Meanwhile, she is greatly honored for 'her courage and determination in being a valiant single mother just trying to do what's best for her kids.' At that point, she could spend 10 hours a day fucking guys if she wanted to and still be more successful and more respected than when she was a married woman.

The married man who becomes 'unsatisfied', on the other hand, often has to choose between giving up ~50% of everything he otherwise would have earned for the rest of his life (and also be considered a deadbeat) in exchange for it being socially acceptable for him to date, or not getting caught having an affair. If I had to, I would definitely choose the latter. Of course, I'm never getting married, so it shouldn't be a problem. (Unless the changing political climate paired with common law marriage somehow bites my ass.)

In other words, married women are encouraged to divorce their husbands - both by social pressures (to be a 'satisfied, good, cool, strong and independent woman') and to be able to turn the man into her ~50% alimony slave. If the woman is caught cheating she more than likely forfeits this. (And is instead treated socially like the devil.)

Of course, this legal stuff varies dramatically by jurisdiction. In some places, women also have to pay large alimonies. Although the social pressures are fairly consistent.

Bro the Loveshy section of the forums are calling to you.

 

[melty]

For real. Millions of men get caught trying to pay to cheat on their SOs with sockpuppets and a talented few still somehow to manage to turn this into a "modern women are the devil" screed.