Ashley Madison customer data stolen

[Always Sunny]

Anyone wanna see if their significant other, boss, uncle/aunt, or neighbor is a customer?

https://ashley.cynic.al/

[Barney Google]

That's gonna be one very busy link...

[Jo]

It also might be a link to collect email addresses. I'd think twice about entering anything in there.

[Glacier]

Has anyone read the article that discusses the fact that a person could open up an AM account with an e-mail that isn't even their own?

Apparently, yes: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=63522&p=1912552&hilit=glaicer%40castanet.net#p1912552

[kgcayenne]

I see, I see. So not only is the available data not credible, but could it be said that those who are the slimiest are protected because they hijacked someone else's e-mail address?

[Always Sunny]

I see, I see. So not only is the available data not credible, but could it be said that those who are the slimiest are protected because they hijacked someone else's e-mail address?

Any site I've ever signed up for seems to require you to confirm through a link sent to the address you signed up with. Unless people have the email password as well, I don't think you can actually create a usable Ashley Madison account. Yeah, it could probably skew these stats floating around. But I don't know if a slime ball can actually use someone else's address otherwise.

[kgcayenne]

Did you read the article?

[twobits]

Any site I've ever signed up for seems to require you to confirm through a link sent to the address you signed up with. Unless people have the email password as well, I don't think you can actually create a usable Ashley Madison account. Yeah, it could probably skew these stats floating around. But I don't know if a slime ball can actually use someone else's address otherwise.

There are thousands of sites that let u sign up for an account without a link back verification. Poor practice for sure on the part of the website but after all, is a site like this not going to want to tout number of members? Just think about this for a moment. There have been some very very high profile people identified via the email addy that were disclosed. Do you seriously think that for example, Tony Blair, past Prime Minister of Britain, would have chit for brains and sign up for a AM account and the email addy was real or published as a genuine contact? Get serious. I would even bet that at least one third of their claimed membership was people entering the names of people they thought would be damaged should someone ever bother looking.

[Always Sunny]

Oh wow. I must apologize profusely for "not remembering" Ashley Madison doesn't require authentication. Guess that's what I get for not being a cheating scumbag.

[urbanhermit]

if the hackers names were to be released today, how long would they have to live?

[Glacier]

I hadn't written much about the Ashley Madison thing. I wasn't really planning on it, but I've been reading other commentary on the subject and having conversations with people about it, and now I feel the need to clarify a few things. As usual, for me, the biggest issue isn't the issue itself, but how our culture reacts to it. After all, I realize people have affairs. That's not terribly surprising.

What I didn't quite realize is that so many people in our country would be so eager to make excuses for it. I wrote something briefly on Facebook a few days ago, and I was shocked by the amount of comments insisting that cheaters have "reasons" for betraying their vows, and sometimes there are "circumstances" we can't understand. It's just a "mistake," I was informed over and over again.

No, it isn't. It's a choice. An evil choice. And there is a difference.

We'll talk about that in this piece.

Also, I want to address this idea that the adulterers are "victims" of hacking. I knew the victimization culture had gotten out of hand in this country, but this is pretty ridiculous.

Finally, I've seen that viral post many of you have shared with me. A woman responded to the Josh Duggar revelations by saying parents need to teach their daughters to "breathe fire" and make men "cower." It was a radical feminist rant, essentially pretending adultery is exclusively a man problem, and insisting that women need to learn how to "take the power" from men.
It was a really disturbing, hateful, asinine feminist diatribe, and it's made all the more disturbing by the number of people who found it so insightful. I have a few things to say on the subject.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/c ... mistake-2/

"Hackers steal data, which is bad. Cheaters steal trust, which is far worse."

[Hassel99]

"Hackers steal data, which is bad. Cheaters steal trust, which is far worse."

Don't even get him started on trusted data !

[Barney Google]

This is interesting...

from CBC

The women of Ashley Madison

"Almost none of the women in the Ashley Madison database ever used the site," according to Gizmodo editor-in-chief Annalee Newitz. Gizmodo is a technology blog owned by Gawker Media. Here's what she found:
■5.55 million accounts are marked female (about 15 per cent of all profiles). Other sources have slightly different numbers. Dadaviz shows five million female accounts, 14 per cent of the total.
■12,000 profiles seem to be about women who are active on the site. Most of female profiles appear to have been abandoned very soon after they were created.
■Over 9,000 accounts with female profiles had ashleymadison.com email address, while just 1,000 had male profiles or no gender specified.
■68,709 female profiles had an IP address that suggests they were created on one of Ashley Madison's own computers, compared to 12,069 male or no-gender-specified accounts.
■1,492 women had checked the messages in their Ashley Madison accounts. Two-thirds of the men had done so (20.3 million).
■2,409 women had engaged in chat on Ashley Madison, compared to 11 million men, or about one-third of the men.
■9,700 women replied to a message from an Ashley Madison member, while nearly six million men had done so.


This makes a lot of men look like a pack of dirty cheating dogs! WOW

[skydawg]

This is interesting...

from CBC

The women of Ashley Madison

"Almost none of the women in the Ashley Madison database ever used the site," according to Gizmodo editor-in-chief Annalee Newitz. Gizmodo is a technology blog owned by Gawker Media. Here's what she found:
■5.55 million accounts are marked female (about 15 per cent of all profiles). Other sources have slightly different numbers. Dadaviz shows five million female accounts, 14 per cent of the total.
■12,000 profiles seem to be about women who are active on the site. Most of female profiles appear to have been abandoned very soon after they were created.
■Over 9,000 accounts with female profiles had ashleymadison.com email address, while just 1,000 had male profiles or no gender specified.
■68,709 female profiles had an IP address that suggests they were created on one of Ashley Madison's own computers, compared to 12,069 male or no-gender-specified accounts.
■1,492 women had checked the messages in their Ashley Madison accounts. Two-thirds of the men had done so (20.3 million).
■2,409 women had engaged in chat on Ashley Madison, compared to 11 million men, or about one-third of the men.
■9,700 women replied to a message from an Ashley Madison member, while nearly six million men had done so.


This makes a lot of men look like a pack of dirty cheating dogs! WOW

Women are no different

[Woodenhead]

Men and women "cheat"* at close to the same rate. Reasons may be different, but most recent studies reflect this. I think that could be an entire topic on its own.

I've little sympathy for hackers. I have even less sympathy for cheaters.


* I put cheat in quotes because men and women tend to have different definitions of what constitutes infidelity, and thus report it differently.