Ashley Madison, infamous infidelity website, target of data hack

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I agree, sadly for you, American law/morality is not the be all and end all of everything, now is it?

Who here said it was? It is however the arbiter of whether or not what transpired was legal.

So...

I wonder how many people are freaking out about their info being leaked?

I wonder if any divorce attorneys are licking their chops over this...?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You did, by invoking the invalid nature of my argument in a subject that was not bound by the rules you arbitrarily created.
It is clear that we shall have no agreement here isn't it? Your opinion is diametrically opposed to mine. If the world you want to create for our children is one of protectionism to the nth degree, regardless of what you are protecting, then that is your prerogative. I shall preserve my right to opine against the same.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
So...

I wonder how many people are freaking out about their info being leaked?

I wonder if any divorce attorneys are licking their chops over this...?

Perhaps some on this very website are worried, who knows? I of course mean that with the point about attorneys!

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: danielsil18
37 million joined Ashley Madison!?

Maybe marriage goes against human nature.

Starred.

Scientific consensus would agree with you. Monogamy can be a societal norm, such as in Western civilization, but it is not natural to our species. We are promiscuous, and most of us will act on it, sooner or later.

But murder is also natural to our species, in fact we ONLY call it murder under certain circumstances.
We are a dominant species, we kill our enemies. Rape too is natural, in fact many mammals both rape/mate and then kill previous young. If we agree that the primal urge should be obeyed then everything is ok.
It seems we want to go both forwards and backwards sometimes, away from our animal instincts while at the same time towards them.

For the record. I am not a proponent of the "If it's natural, it must be good" mindset. There's much I could say to your post, but I would only be beating a dead horse at this point.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
You did, by invoking the invalid nature of my argument in a subject that was not bound by the rules you arbitrarily created.

I created no 'rules'. My participation revolved around the illegality of the hackers actions which some claimed were done in the interests of morality. They were illegal regardless of their genesis.

It is clear that we shall have no agreement here isn't it?

If you think that illegal behavior somehow justifies certain people's views on morality, then, yes, we will not agree.

Seriously can you imagine how much stuff will hit the fan if that information ever gets dumped onto the Internet?

The devil inside hopes it does, so I can take a peek.

The little Angle on my other shoulder however, shudders to think of all the heart ache and grief it will cause.

It's probably best it stays buried.

I'm now actually wondering if my dirtbag of an ex will be in that list, ha ha now that would make me smile

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You said that my opinion was invalid, your words were "you have nothing to add" more or less? You inferred referencing another poster that the reason for this was because you were discussing the constitution. I was not discussing the constitution of the USA nor was I aware that such a discussion was the premise of the OP.

I believe that legality is subjective and that the legality we enjoy in this part of the world, mostly imposed by the "arbiters of freedom" is legality in name only. I am sure that many will agree.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I was not discussing the constitution of the USA nor was I aware that such a discussion was the premise of the OP.

No one said it was the premise of the Original Post, it was however rather germane to the conversation since page one with myself and many other posters. Your initial post made it clear you felt is was justified to break the law to enforce what you believe is moral. However owing to the fact that you are not a citizen you made it clear that you do not proscribe to our laws, that portion is irrelevant.

I believe that legality is subjective and that the legality we enjoy in this part of the world, mostly imposed by the "arbiters of freedom" is legality in name only. I am sure that many will agree.

Good for you, the hackers however are not going to be handled with subjective law but with United States law.

Look we can debate right vs wrong all damn day long..but many imo are missing the bigger picture Here.

This sounds like a huge dragnet just to see who might me using this site. People are dumb and use their real names all the time. Just think of the ramifications if a big name popped up.

a reply to: Justaposter

Wouldn't it be something is some big name politician were to come up on the list of names?

It would be so big even CNN might stop discussing Trump for a few seconds.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Justaposter


Wouldn't it be something is some big name politician were to come up on the list of names?

It would be so big even CNN might stop discussing Trump for a few seconds.

BINGO!

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
It would be so big even CNN might stop discussing Trump for a few seconds.

But Trump would not stop discussing Trump so you have that.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Comparing gay rights and religion to a site that's literally based on having affairs lol

You're a simpleton and the username you chose is an insult to science itself.

I'm glad it was hacked. It's an unethical website that only exists for scandalous people

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And if a few big names pop up, how much do you want to bet they'll be introducing new clamp downs of internet freedom in the name of "security"?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, I believe it is acceptable to break a law that is founded in hypocrisy. I believe it is revelatory that you would defend those who wish to protect the rights of a group of immoral/amoral money grabbing "business people".
If we are going to get down to the real nitty gritty why don't you tell us WHY you believe that these types of people deserve to be protected under your blessed constitution?
What exactly is it that you wish to protect?
Do you doubt your politicians ability to use common sense in the application of such rules?
Or would you rather that your politicians did not use such rules at all?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Good for you, the hackers however are not going to be handled with subjective law but with United States law.

I think the laws that are applied will depend on the where the hackers reside. I post the following to emphasize it is a Toronto based company, which is where I live and find it amusing that I just discovered that tidbit out today. I'm not quite sure how this works as far as which laws of the land would be applied, tho.

A Canadian-owned website for people seeking affairs was recovering from a cyberattack Monday after hackers stole confidential customer information, posted some of it online and threatened to publish all of it unless the company is shut down.

Avid Life Media, which owns Toronto-based cheating site AshleyMadison.com, called the attack an "act of cyberterrorism" and vowed to hold those behind the hack responsible for their actions.

"We apologize for this unprovoked and criminal intrusion into our customers' information," the company said in a statement. "We have always had the confidentiality of our customers' information foremost in our minds, and have had stringent security measures in place."

I do get where you are coming from as well. Your post got me thinking about how all this works out legally...that's all.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

Yes, I believe it is acceptable to break a law that is founded in hypocrisy.

How is a right to privacy 'founded in hypocrisy'?

I believe it is revelatory that you would defend those who wish to protect the rights of a group of immoral/amoral money grabbing "business people".

I do not like neo-Nazis, not one bit, I think they are vile and reprehensible human beings. That being said I would defend their rights to free speech because that is how the Constitution operates.

If we are going to get down to the real nitty gritty why don't you tell us WHY you believe that these types of people deserve to be protected under your blessed constitution?

Because they have federally protected rights to privacy.

What exactly is it that you wish to protect?

Their Constitutional rights.

Do you doubt your politicians ability to use common sense in the application of such rules?

How does the right to privacy violate common sense?

Or would you rather that your politicians did not use such rules at all?

All PRIVATE citizens have certain federally protected rights, politicians do not have as many protections.

a reply to: Involutionist

Good information, thank you.

Aww all those poor cheaters are worried that their info has been compromised.