Wonder what this will do to the divorce rate …
-
Now that I think about it, if I were going to write that page...I would have it insert any email addresses that get searched. That would cause mayhem.
-
test@example.com
was found in the leak!
-
I just tried no@nospam.com, and of course it was found.
They have said before that they never even attempted email validation, so literally any email address could be in there. Had I known this would happen, I would have added the email addresses of all the world leaders.
-
barack@whitehouse.gov is in there. That amuses me.
-
I imagine a lot of public celeb emails are, from people trying in vain to prank them (hint: PotUS is not the first human to see tmail sent to
barack(at)whitehouse.gov
, it gets filtered through his secretary first.)
-
-
nah. that was clinton's thing.
Obama's no poacher.
-
-
I just tried no@nospam.com, and of course it was found.
TFA I linked mentioned that several bugmenot accounts were in the new allegedly leaked data.
-
I found several people that I know. Hmmmmm, do any of them have anything that I want?
I may be swimming in scotch here very soon...
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Post withdrawn.
-
If you want to know if your data's in it, https://haveibeenpwned.com/ is being pretty responsible about it: They won't expose Ashley Madison data to the public, only to the owner of the email address after email verification.
It's a good place to send panicked relatives and friends and whatnot
-
, https://haveibeenpwned.com/ is being pretty responsible about it:
Until of course, they in turn get pwned. (yes yes - i know it's only public info)
-
Their records also aren't complete. They don't have the whole dataset.
-
https://ashleymadisonleakeddata.com/check/
Just in case anyone wants to see if they will be outed.
...and it has already been hit with a takedown notice. Not real surprising actually.
Although I am somewhat amused by all of this, I really hope that whomever perpetrated it ends up in jail.
-
Some interesting legal theories floating on Twitter:
In other news, here is a photo of Barbara Streisand's house.
-
PotUS is not the first human to see tmail sent to barack(at)whitehouse.gov, it gets filtered through his secretary first.
Is 'tmail' some exclusive form of communication reserved for world leaders?
-
-
Some interesting legal theories floating on Twitter:
Because when I am looking for sound legal advice on complex issues...I turn to Twitter.
-
@riking said:
Some interesting legal theories floating on Twitter:
Because when I am looking for sound legal advice on complex issues...I turn to Twitter.
Good point, but the tweet that @riking shared also has a point. I don't know if they are perjuring themselves, but it is certainly a potential misuse of the DMCA.
-
@Polygeekery said:
@riking said:
Some interesting legal theories floating on Twitter:
Because when I am looking for sound legal advice on complex issues...I turn to Twitter.
Good point, but the tweet that @riking shared also has a point. I don't know if they are perjuring themselves, but it is certainly a potential misuse of the DMCA.
Could they have a claim of Copyright on the collection of information as a whole even if they don't have copyright on the individual work components?
Note: I still don't understand how DMCA could apply even in that case, but if Copyright works that way it could at least give them some sort of claim ....
-
I don't know if they are perjuring themselves, but it is certainly a potential misuse of the DMCA.
I find it highly unlikely that they would have an EULA in usage that did not transfer copyright over user generated content to them. If they did not, that would be foolish.
But, on the other hand, I see the DMCA an abuse in and of itself. ;)
-
I find it highly unlikely that they would have an EULA in usage that did not transfer copyright over user generated content to them. If they did not, that would be foolish.
But we aren't talking about user generated content, we are talking about personal user-data: names, emails, credit card numbers, addresses. If a company could copyright that data, you would need to have separate legally identifying information for every company you interact with. Unique credit cards, addresses, names (think DBAs). There's no way that data is something that a company could claim copyright over.
-
Eh, I dunno, I could see an argument. It's not just the data. It's the data being represented as coming from their company. They have certain duties with respect to protecting the data. Copyright is taking someone else's stuff and reproducing it. Those guys certainly don't have the right to reproduce AM's customer list.
Maybe it doesn't map directly to copyright, but it at least fits well into the spirit of the law. Which certainly seems to be enough these days.
-
Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
You can't have a copyright on data (names, addresses, etc.), but you can potentially have the copyright on the structure of how you store the data, e.g. the database schema. If the data that some other website is using is simply one table with fields for name, email, and credit card number, it would be difficult to claim copyright over it, since there isn't really much creative effort involved in coming up with that schema. If it's a large database with several tables, though, they might have a legitimate copyright claim.
-
I remember arguing with @xaade erlier in this thread that this would hurt a significant amount of singles:
http://dadaviz.com/s/ashley-madison-revealed
I have been confirmed in my deductions.
-
There's also been some of our Members of Parliament using parliamentary emails on that site and some have called for this to be a "serious matter" that the police should be involved in.
-
-
I'm extremely disappointed that none of the "check this email" sites tell you how much, if any, of the signup process was completed.
If you signed up, but never bought any credits, it should say that too.
That email was FOUND, BUT...
it appears to have never made any payments, and therefore was never used.
That email was FOUND, AND it had a lot of credits remaining. :(
-
Well, no, you haven't actually proved much there. For starters, how was that data gathered? For seconds, you haven't shown how it hurts those singles. So they're on a daring site, so what? That is normal behavior for single people in this day and age.
The way I see it, this is just helping society get over it's fucked up traditional values. For centuries, people have been pushing this “everyone must get married” bullshit, when the truth is that monogamy just isn't right for a lot of people. Far better to have those cheating cheaters cheating ways recognized for what they are than to have them saying one thing and doing another, making life difficult for those of us who do value faithfulness.
-
So they're on a daring site, so what? That is normal behavior for single people in this day and age.
Credit card details was leaked.
The argument i opposed was that the cheaters deserved it.
It was what people set as their site/search settings.
-
Credit card details was leaked
You still haven't proved that that actually hurt anyone. My understanding is that credit card fraud is a routine, easily handled, thing—insignificant compared to the homewrecking caused by cheaters' cheating. And that hurt is entirely the fault of the person who caused it, not any person who told affected individuals the truth about their relationship.
-
credit card fraud is a routine, easily handled, thing
it isn't in the US AFAIK. This might also be enough info to enable identity stealing, which is very much a problem.
homewrecking caused by cheaters' cheating
What the fuck is this ? The morality brigade ? People who cheat make a decision, one that might have consequences, like most decisions.I'm not against publishing the leak - opsec needs to be fucking better, and if anyone can get away with 30GB of data, the company has failed their responsibility towards every user, and needs to be exposed. Especially considering that they brand themselves as a safe place to date confidentially.
-
failed their responsibility towards every user, and needs to be exposed
How the fuck does your brain even work?
-
-
I support people who fail their responsibilities being exposed, Swayde calls that moralizing, then goes on to say the exact same thing. I just don't get that at all.
-
He said that Ashley Madison failed their users, but doesn't have a problem with the site in and of itself. You appear to be upset about the moral implications of the site as a whole.
-
I just support sharing the information. People have a right to know about stuff that affects them. I just don't get how exposing that a company has failed its responsibility towards it's users is any more or less of a moral issue than exposing a cheater that has failed their responsibility towards their partner.
-
One is private, between two individuals. The other is public and between a business and millions of users.
You are trying to enforce your morality on society. It is none of our business.
-
I don't see how I'm enforcing anything on anyone. All I was trying to say is that when that information does get shared, any fallout is the fault of the person who did the thing, not the person who exposed it. People who engage in cheating with the expectation that they will not be found out are stupid and wrong.
-
they will not be found out are stupid and wrong
I agree. I just don't mind them cheating, their problem, and not really a problem for me (morally).
I just support sharing the information
We agree then, just for different reasons...
-
Okay, you want to be morality brigade and expose the cheaters for being cheaters, that's fair enough,. But CC details?! Why not rob their houses too?
-
Whatever. That's just money. They were probably going to waste it all on books or ram chips anyways.
-
But CC details?! Why not rob their houses too?
Well, they are cheaters. They should have expected this.
-
The guy who runs the site I linked earlier apparently has been flooded with personal stories from people who have been hacked begging for more information:
ETA: And then, apparently, found out other sites like Trustify are being shady. Whodathunk: http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/08/ashley-madison-search-sites-like.html
-
And then, apparently, found out other sites like Trustify are being shady.
It appears someone took my earlier thoughts to the extreme.
Now that I think about it, if I were going to write that page...I would have it insert any email addresses that get searched. That would cause mayhem.
-
And now Ashley Madison is getting sued:
Here's my favorite part:
The statement went on to say that the class action lawsuit will not seek damages from the hackers who leaked the information.