Multiple reports suggest that Impact Team has leaked around 9.6 to 10 gigabytes of data from the "cheating/affair website" Ashley Madison onto Tor sites (now available via BitTorrent). According to Ars Technica:
A 10-gigabyte file purportedly containing e-mails, member profiles, credit-card transactions and other sensitive Ashley Madison information became available as a BitTorrent download in the past few hours. Ars downloaded the massive file and it appeared to contain a trove of details taken from a clandestine dating site, but so far there is nothing definitively linking it to Ashley Madison. User data included e-mail addresses, profile descriptions, addresses provided by users, weight, and height. A separate file containing credit card transaction data didn't include full payment card numbers or billing addresses.
Rob Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said the dump also included user passwords that were cryptographically protected using the bcrypt hashing algorithm. That's among the most secure ways to store passwords, because bcrypt is extremely slow, a trait that requires crackers to devote vast amounts of time and computing resources. Still, it's highly likely a large percentage of the hashes will be cracked, given rampant use of weak passwords.
Ashley Madison officials have stopped short of confirming the published information was extracted from the breach.
"We have now learned that the individual or individuals responsible for this attack claim to have released more of the stolen data," they wrote in an e-mail to Ars. "We are actively monitoring and investigating this situation to determine the validity of any information posted online and will continue to devote significant resources to this effort. Furthermore, we will continue to put forth substantial efforts into removing any information unlawfully released to the public, as well as continuing to operate our business."
Previously: Adult 'Extracurricular Activity' Website AshleyMadison.com Hacked
Related Stories
KrebsonSecurity is reporting that the online "cheating" site AshleyMadison.com (and other sites run by the Avid Life Media group) has been hacked with user information compromised by a group called the Impact Team.
The group is threatening to release all data online as a result of alleged lies the ALM group told members unless the sites are entirely shut down.
"Full Delete netted ALM $1.7mm in revenue in 2014. It's also a complete lie," the hacking group wrote. "Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real name and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed."
AshleyMadison.com does offer a $20 "Full Delete" option for a users profile, as detailed in this ArsTechnica article from 2014. Obviously, this "Full Delete" is now useless, as the information is already (allegedly) in the hands of the hackers.
Is this a case of altruistic hacking or a possible case of revenge?
According to security blogger Graham Cluley, some former members of the site are now receiving blackmail demands through the post. The letters ask for thousands of dollars and threaten to out former members if the lucre is not forthcoming.
Ever since the database of Ashley Madison users was displayed online, blackmailers have been quick to try and extort money from members. The swift exposure of high-profile casualties, like former director of the Family Research Council Josh Duggar, who resigned in disgrace after being shown to have multiple accounts with the website, showed there was money to be made.
After the database went online, at least one suicide was linked to the leak.
It later emerged that the whole website was something of a busted flush, with around one per cent of the people on there being women looking for affairs.
Previous Soylent Coverage:
Amazon and GoDaddy Sued for Hosting Leaked Ashley Madison Data
Infidelity Website Hack Leads to Suicides in Canada
Hackers Reportedly Leak Nearly 10 GB of Ashley Madison ("Cheating Site") Files
Adult 'Extracurricular Activity' Website AshleyMadison.com Hacked
Two individuals associated with the leak of Ashley Madison customer details are reported to have taken their lives, according to police in Canada. The police in Toronto gave no further information about the deaths.
Ashley Madison's Canadian parent company Avid Life Media is offering a C$500,000 (£240,000) reward for information on the hackers, they added.
Scammers have reportedly moved quickly to exploit the leaked database:
[Toronto police's acting staff superintendent Bryce Evans] warned that miscreants were already moving in on panicked users of the websites, offering – for a fee of course – to remove the offending details from the database in exchange for one Bitcoin. This is, of course, impossible because the data is already out there, but Evans said this hadn't stopped the scammers trying it on.
The Canadian police have also discovered cases of scammers contacting people on the database and threatening to expose them to family and work colleagues if a payment wasn't sent. Anyone threatened in this way is urged to get in contact with the police via a special website or telephone number set up by Toronto police.
The investigative team can be reached at (416) 808-2040. Anonymous tips are always welcome through @1800222TIPS #AMcaseTPS
In related news:
- 15,000 U.S. government email addresses were found in the database, and Washington, D.C. reportedly had the highest membership rate of any city on the site.
- Defense Secretary Ashton Carter says that service members found to have used the site may face disciplinary action.
- From the EFF, Ashley Madison's Owners Give In to Temptation To Misuse The DMCA.
- From The Intercept, Email from a Married, Female Ashley Madison User.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday August 19 2015, @01:33AM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:48AM
Maybe they were behind it. Then again ...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:23AM
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @01:59PM
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
(Score: 1) by ralphhogaboom on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:48PM
Or what's more likely, someone creates a searchable website front end for the data. Punch in the last name, and it shows the last four of the CC number that matches. Or search by email address, and see results that way.
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:30PM
I wouldn't be shocked if a divorce lawyer download the DB, extracted the addresses, and sent out a mass mailing. They could even dress up the envelope to be inconspicuous, address it to "The Lady Of The House". Some flowery language about "thinking about your future" and "sometimes the time to be your own woman is now". I'm sure they'd get a large enough hit rate to offset any bad press or legal ramifications.
Note: I'm not saying this is right or just. It's spamming, and scummy as fucking hell-- but these are lawyers. I'm not saying anyone should. I'm just saying I won't be surprised if it happens.
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @01:42AM
That some of the hackers had a personal grudge against someone, and couldn't resist slipping their rival's name and personal info into this trove of cheater stuff. Game over for that dude, especially once confirmation starts rolling in for some of the legitimate names.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:17AM
Sorry, but that is just too much effort.
It's been already published in media that haxers said "shut down site or we'll release info and proof that you are not deleting profiles that people pay extra to get deleted". Whoever did this, has an apparent motive against the site and/or people behind it.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:08AM
The Blackmail sketch [youtube.com] from Monty Python's Flying Circus, a photo from which showing Terry Jones in his birthday suit at the organ in El Reg's article, is very apropos here: Send us £15 to stop us from revealing to your husband and lovely children the name the name of your lover in Bolton. Now, all we need is some video so we can play "Stop the Film"!
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:18AM
Send us £15 to stop us from revealing to your husband and lovely children the name the name of your lover in Bolton.
Go ahead. You've already revealed the most shameful part of the whole sordid mess.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:10AM
Is stupid, might as well post your Want-A-Ho ads on Facebook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:13AM
I'm sure it worked out pre brickshitting.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:12AM
Since marriage is a legal contract, instead of being forever, we should set term limits on them. Say, ten years, with options to renew every five years. Love isn't forever, even if the offspring are. And they're often more damaged by divorce than the parents are.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:26AM
So you want to get more people thinking about divorce more often so they divorce before practicing infidelity. What's the point? The status quo works although the domestic violence is a turn off.
Maybe 5 years is too long for a term. 2 years?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:14AM
For the too wet behind the ears to have heard about it: 7 years itch [wikipedia.org].
A 1999 study showed [nytimes.com] there is a 4 years itch and a 7 years itch.
23 years later, an informal study on the parenting site netmums (read: survey) indicates [netmums.com] that current couples are likely to throw in the towel after 3 years.
Yeah, well... A.M. services seem to be targeted at the one partner (when s/he exists) with too much time in their hands (ummm... or is it something else in/under their hands that needs scratching?)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:32AM
The divorce is a gravy train for women. There is a reason why men take the risk of infidelity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:58AM
Exactly. And when I point out the most personally relevant real-life example where a pre-nup would have helped, that of my parents, women still tell me that I'm "just planning on divorce". Courts take infidelity as some great moral offense, but partner alienation, disparagement, lack of sex, or simply getting excessively fat are not considered on the same realm. If a man loses his job, he's failing to provide for the family, if the woman loses hers, it is viewed as a secondary income, even if she makes more. Other than paternity rights and some tax benefits, there's very little upside to marriage for men.
I'm simply not willing to take a bad deal to maybe get laid regularly for the first two years, that is if the moon is in alignment with Saturn and no one has looked at her the wrong way today.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:44AM
This is sexism at its finest. This is the kind of shit feminism seeks to end by pushing for gender equality (equality, not inequality in the other direction like extremist nutjobs of both genders push for).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:12AM
Oh lay it off. Feminism doesn't fight for equality and has never fought for equality, from its inception in the minds of aristocratic bored house-wives of eighteen hundreds to this day. This lie comes from exactly two types of people: 1. Men who are too blind to see their own disadvantage or 2. Women who are just bullshitting to keep the status quo. Feminism has done exactly one thing - made personal relationships more and more political by demanding more and more involvement of state. It is Marxism for women riding over the labors of men.
Now I will leave this conversation because feminism-anti-feminism is already too political (literally) and doesn't solve any purpose here on SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:30PM
Yes, both men and women are disadvantaged in many cases and that is a problem. Historically, it was much worse for women and feminism has done a lot to fix that.
There is still a lot left to do to fix sexism, whichever way it swings. It would probably be better to be pro-father or pro-husband equality instead of being anti-feminism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @11:31PM
Feminism predates marx.
In it's modern form, it's from England and America.
It's about men being restricted to old cunts, and paying for it.
First thing they did was ban men marrying girl children.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:56PM
Would you please point me in the direction of a feminist who is arguing for gender equality in divorce or gender equality in general? It would be helpful if it would be somebody who has some say in the direction the movement is headed instead of somebody who simply calls themselves a feminist but doesn't really have much involvement with the movement.
I'm thinking either we've encountered two vastly different kinds of feminist or we have radically different definitions of equality. (I suppose you might also be Rip van Winkle.) These are examples of what I'd consider progress towards gender equality. I have never heard a feminist taking up any of these positions (neither the ones I prefer nor the suggested alternative), not after around 1980–1990-ish or so anyway. Further down the list when I get into issues that are more social and less legal/policy, I've even seen feminists pushing for positions that are outright oppressive towards men.
There's more on my mind, but I didn't want to spend too much time trying to come up with alternatives for them that would result in gender equality.
Oddly, my preferences seem to align fairly well (but not 100%) with positions taken by men's rights activists I've come across. Generally, the alternatives I thought up have troubles or are otherwise just simply inhumane (especially in the case of genital mutilation) so I don't see why anybody would support those (and nobody does, except perhaps mikeeusa).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:01PM
> Oddly, my preferences seem to align fairly well (but not 100%) with positions taken by men's rights activists I've come across.
Anyone who has read your rants over the last year+ will not find that odd at all.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 20 2015, @01:49AM
Anywhere I can look to find these contemporary feminists who want gender equality? I really want to broaden my horizons. Especially after recent experience. Things are getting grim. I've already mentioned folks I know who have no access to healthcare despite being compelled by the government to purchase health “insurance.”
Disclaimer: I find your typical MRA to be incorrect due to his (or her) rejection of trans women.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday August 20 2015, @05:34AM
I don't know the stand of MRAs on trans women, personally. If I have to make a guess I will say it has something to do with pointing out gender differences (which feminists only point out towards when it involves holding historical rights that are biased against men). MRAs are actually Men's Rights Activists so they take extreme point of views as a negotiating tool.
Anyway, could you please point out some link to me about MRAs position on trans-women?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 21 2015, @01:57AM
I eternally hold out hope that the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement) will come around as concerns trans women. Doing some Googling (directed at AVFM), things may be changing, or not. It's clear feminism has no intention of accepting trans women who don't toe the social justice bully line; that would be too dangerous. The MHRM denies itself by rejecting redpill trans women merely because of a misguided belief that they are failed men.
Here's something. [avoiceformen.com] Maxx's post is in line with what I'd seen briefly a few years ago when I was interested in it. A trans friend of mine pointed my way there and wanted to know what I thought. Was financially backing AVFM advisable? Before I could get back to her, her account was banned, and there was a message on the front page explaining that some feminist/communist accounts had been banned for attempted recruiting. That was too bad. Like me, my friend is a Libertarian (card carrying member, in fact), most certainly not communist.
However, Maxx does not seem to speak for the movement, as evinced by the replies.
AVFM came back into my consciousness while I was Googling something completely unrelated and happened upon From Woman to Man to Red Pill [avoiceformen.com]. It's an interesting read.
Yet, Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism [avoiceformen.com] remains a depressing read. While I'm not certain AVFM is giving the trans man in From Women to Man to Red Pill authenticity as a man, it's absolutely certain after reading Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism that the trans woman remains denied her authenticity as a woman.
Other observations: it's clear that the MHRM is absolutely not misogynist. Indeed, many cisgendered women, even former radfems have “seen the light.”
All of this in my mind speaks to the utter lack of research about transgendered folks. Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism does have a valid criticism of existing studies as having woefully small sample sizes.
I would like to make a contrast. From Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism:
It is simply implausible that a child that associates with the opposite sex label has any real understanding of what that means, but unfortunately, such associations often stick.
How many times, especially on the other site, when gender issues come up, has somebody needed to make the obvious point that boys and girls are different and point to evidence of toy preference even in the crib? We have AVFM joining the gender feminists and social engineers in the assertion that gender is socially constructed and psychologically malleable for a child.
This is one point that is in stark contrast to the rest of the platform of logic and evidence upon which the MHRM stands.
To summarize, my friend SMSed me the other day, “Ma'amed at Jimmy John's again.” Even while obviously presenting as a man, she get's “ma'amed.” Who is she to argue with somebody who believes she is a woman? Only feminism and the MHRM. (The answer key to why this happens to her is found in Julia Serano's book Whipping Girl, but don't read that! It might turn your sons gay!)
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 21 2015, @02:00AM
get's
Argh! *throws a knife at the greengrocer's apostrophe!*
Flyover country is getting to me!
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday August 23 2015, @07:19AM
The only thing I can say is that western MRAs are stupid. They are a rag-tag group of people with very diverse thoughts and no leadership or organization. After decades they have yet to get anything done when in fact they could have changed the face of the world considering any law that gets accepted in the west becomes the 'obvious greatness' to be imposed all over the world. Instead, you can think of anything and find an MRA saying that. They are too focused on some definition of masculinity and not at all on real men. In front of them the world changed from 'free love' to 'I am illogical and irrational because I am a woman so I should not be held accountable for any lies I say as that is my right. "Woman's rights are human rights"', and they have stood there watching. They have let conservatives the center stage in father's rights' issue, when in fact it have always been the conservatives who have made most men's lives hell. They have let old staunch feminists of 70s to infiltrate both Republicans and Democrats and they have let them narrate abortion as a my-body-my-choice issue when it is not. In their jest to save marriages they have let oxymoron like martial rape to become a law, while at the same time divorce rates have been skyrocketing. They have stood-by and watched while violent rape became synonymous with having sex while drunk in a college. The only group I see doing anything within a structure is AVfM, and they are just too small and even they have let a lot of people with differing ideologies to use their platform, ultimately confusing normal populace. Seriously, they are defined by a list of patently false allegations from feminists who can't let men have a voice. Seriously, after so many DECADES, this their achievement:
This is "IRAQ HAS WMD" level of bullshit, considering that biggest Men's Rights Movements are situated in 3rd world countries. Because of their level of laziness and intellectual dishonesty men of rest of the world will end up suffering under Hilary Clinton.
This is not a rant, really. The amount of incompetence from MRAs in countries like UK, USA, Spain and Germany is the root cause why suicide rates of men in these countries have been skyrocketing. The suicide ratio of men vs women in Sweden is 16:1. And the whole western world wants to imitate Sweden. For every 1000 men 950 women are born - the natural ratio. In Sweden the ratio is 1000:1050, i.e., 905:950. That means every 1 in 10 man is committing suicide. And UN and World Economic Forum's gender equality report [weforum.org] list these 5 countries as the best:
They are too focused on saving masculinity and not much on men, as far I could understand.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday August 23 2015, @07:22AM
*zest or jest, though both fit.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:09AM
> And when I point out the most personally relevant real-life example where a pre-nup would have helped, that of my parents,
And the award for today's most unintentionally revealing post goes to the gugginator. That explains sooo much of the world view expressed in your posting history.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Wednesday August 19 2015, @01:49PM
Prenuptial is an excellent idea. It protects both people. That "it's just planning for divorce" thing is said from people who habitually lie to themselves even in the face of final outcomes. People change and everyone has to realize that. What could be perfect now could be very toxic later. On the other hand what is perfect now you'll find out wasn't all that great because it got even better, lol.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:42AM
Huh? Why do men risk infidelity, aside from just being dishonest scumbags? And whats so "gravy train" about divorce?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:24AM
Because they don't see why they should live a compromised life of not getting what they want, not doing what they want but instead spend time working and earning in a cut-throat world and give that money to another human being who is just as capable (and cannot legally be called otherwise) but whose only talent is to pretend to be miserable.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:16AM
Oh, shut up! Don't you dare remind me about my migraine... oh, my head.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:31AM
Oh kay.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:00AM
Or just realize how stupid marrying purely because you're in love is. If you can't be arsed to do the other things involved with having a helpful marriage, then it's not going to work out well.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:12AM
Marriage is not a legal contract.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:19AM
Care to make an affirmative statement* on what exactly you think marriage is?
* the opposite of stating what is not
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:33AM
If someone said "gravity is when things move towards the ground" and I said "no, it is not", would you respond with a full request for scientific definitions of gravity, with a full explanation of general relativity? Or do you think marriage is less complex than gravity?
So no, I wouldn't care to pretend to give a decisive definition of marriage, that would be pretentious.
To move from "there are legal contracts imposed on marriage" to "marriage is a legal contract" is tremendously unsound. Do you really think that marriage evolved in humans after legal contracts? If a judge said "oh you didn't fill out the paperwork properly, you aren't married" would you expect married people to just shrug their shoulders and go their separate ways in life? I realize it's human nature to support cynical statements, but that doesn't make them true.
(Score: 1) by szopin on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:41AM
Funny you mention that, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation [wikipedia.org]
'in some legal systems a marriage may be annulled if it has not been consummated. Consummation is also very relevant in the case of a common law marriage.'
What you seem to be arguing is that people choose to live in pairs, for which no legal contract is needed indeed. But marriage is actually defined as a contract (confirmed by someone, whether religious person or civil servant, that makes it legally binding, or would you assume that two people telling each other they love one another is marriage?)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 19 2015, @09:11AM
I like this much better than a simple "legal matter has nothing to do with marriage" (I couldn't discount such an interpretation of your first reaction).
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:22AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage [wikipedia.org]
Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws
(Score: 4, Interesting) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:20AM
If some authoritarians got all kinds of laws passed saying "You are allowed to have sex on Thursdays and Fridays, but no other day. And you get a tax break for having no sex for a week. And you are only allowed to have sex in certain ways." That doesn't make sex a legal institution, it just makes everyone who considers it a legal institution an asshole.
Similarly for marriage, imposing a disgusting amount of legal codes around marriage doesn't make it a legal contract, it just makes the supporters of this assholes. If all the lawyers, legislators, and police in the world died, many of us wouldn't consider that marriage has changed at all. For those who do, I really pity you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:37AM
When have there not been legal codes around marriage? Sometime pre-Old Testament, I guess?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:41AM
If you want the state to recognize you're married, there are certain procedures you must follow. If you want some personal marriage, you're to get it. Why can't there be both?
But frankly, all of the legal benefits you get with marriage shouldn't be limited to marriage.
If all the lawyers, legislators, and police in the world died, many of us wouldn't consider that marriage has changed at all.
It wouldn't change for me either. It would remain as some worthless social ritual that I'll never participate in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:49AM
The fuck its not. Its a legal contract by definition. Thats why the government is involved. Its sure as shit not anything else, like anything at all to do with religion. The only reason marriage was pushed as a religious thing was to assuage women's potential issues with the fact that they were literally being bought and sold like property.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:08AM
If everyone in the government died, and a disease spawned which killed anyone who asserted governing authority 200 milliseconds after making the claim; even then people would still get married.
Governments are not necessary for marriage.
The fuck its not. Its a legal contract by definition.
I could just as easily say: "You're wrong. By definition." That's the thing about definitions. You can choose your own, but you'll only be talking to yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @11:01AM
You're right. Neither party offers anythig to the other in the wedding vows. Likewise, neither party accepts that non-existent offer (don't be fooled by the words "I do", "do" is just legalese jargon that means nothing). Likewise, neither party intents the marriage to be legally binding, that would be absurd. And finally, neither party has anything of value invested in the deal, so there's no consideration either.
And finally, the most damning proof that marriage is not a contract is that the phrase "marriage contract" has never ever been uttered, written, or otherwise communicated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @12:13PM
Yes, it is. You can live together as couple and do everything married people do without being married. And you can live separately as if you were single despite being married.
Being married is a legal contract, and only a legal contract. Note that entering a legal contract can very well be a very emotional thing. But that doesn't change its nature as legal contract.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:52AM
Or just get a divorce, or separate. Nobody in the western world makes you live with someobody forever just because you signed a marriage application when you were 20.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:58PM
Love isn't forever, even if the offspring are.
According to the research of Dr. Willard Harley, it is in 20% of marriages, and if the other marriages follow certain procedures adopted from that 20%, it will be for them as well.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:04AM
Yes, this is bad. But it may not be the trivial, criminal grab for money or settling of a personal grudge that most sites seem to be reporting it as.
According to German news site "Spiegel online", the hackers said their motivation was that Ashley Madison has 90-95% of male profiles, while most female profiles are fake ( http://m.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/a-1048773.html [spiegel.de] , german only ). If that's true, then AM is scamming their users - millions of people.
Is anybody actually checking that angle? Is somebody, in addition to the obvious data breach, doing an investigation for fraud?
If not: why?
Can any Soylent reader find the alleged user data and do a quick check ? (neccessarily a cursory one, since the alleged user data may very well be doctored)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:11AM
You could download the data yourself and check.
(Score: 4, Funny) by jasassin on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:32AM
I did. Every girlfriend I've had was on there. Oh well, I'm officially becoming celebate, and have already made my appointment for the clinic.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:29PM
> Oh well, I'm officially becoming celebate, and have already made my appointment for the clinic.
Celebate good times, come on! (Let's celebate)
Celebate good times, come on! (Let's celebate)
There's a party goin' on right here
A celebation to last throughout the years
So bring your good times, and your laughter too
We gonna celebate your party with you
Come on now
Celebation
Let's all celebate and have a good time
Celebation
We gonna celebate and have a good time
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @09:14AM
Yes, I could, and maybe I even would.
Where do I go for the download? This is not a rhethorical question.
The best information I've seen so far is that it was released "on the darknet". I realize that a) a search engine probably won't help me and b) going to www.darknet.com will not be useful either. But I'm still naive enough to not know where I would obtain those 10GB.
Since I only have a passing interest (most of their members live on a different continent), I also will not embark on a week-long quest to become knowledgable in black-hatty things like "Where do I download stolen data?".
(Score: 4, Informative) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:19PM
Where do I go for the download? This is not a rhethorical question.
https://thepiratebay.gd/torrent/12244701/Impact_Team_-_Ashley_Madison_Email_Dump [thepiratebay.gd]
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:21PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday August 25 2015, @12:12AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:34AM
A website for cheaters cheats its users. Oh, and information wants to be free. Please be more careful with your dirty secrets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:41AM
that class-action notification letter to your spouse.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:12AM
> Hackers Reportedly Leak Nearly 10 GB [...] Files
...and all I'm doing is sitting here and trying to imagine what exactly data is in it. Wikipedia says AM has "Users: More than 37 million (as of July 2015)" so that mean ~270 bytes per user. That's enough for name, password hash, email address, card number(s) and maybe some more. But no pictures or actual message content. Unless "10 GB [...] Files" mean compressed files, then it is more. But still not enough to contain actual text messages.
So the hack proves some people has a registration there. IANAL but I think this information is not enough reason in court for a divorce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:34AM
> So the hack proves some people has a registration there. IANAL but I think this information is not enough reason in court for a divorce.
Hack also proves they paid for premium access. But in most of the western world the only 'reason' needed for divorce is one person wanting to get one - its called no-fault divorce and in the USA some states have gone so far as to practically eliminate fault divorce. If this data confirms a person's suspicions, even if it isn't rigorous proof, that's enough.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:45AM
Thanks for the information. Nowadays divorce basically means "let's split the money and the children". If someone wants a divorce in USA I suppose they get half of the money. But are they still forced to pay ("support") to the ex-partner every month if it was no-fault divorce?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Atatsu on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:02PM
Paying to support the other ex-partner usually depends on whether or not you have children together. And in the event you do have children together it isn't as simple as just "splitting" the kids. If the parents can't agree on custody (and I seriously doubt most people agree on that shit) then you have to go to trial and a judge decides what the custody arrangement will be.
I went through a divorce that took a few years and was merely fighting for dual custody. My ex-wife was fighting for full custody. I eventually won and we both have 50/50 custody. However, due to my salary being significantly more than hers I still have to pay her nearly $600 a month for child support. When the court does their calculations they take your current salary into account. As in, the divorce is now final, how much do both of you make? I find it quite disgusting. The rationale behind it is that both partners need to maintain the same quality of life as when they were married for the sake of the children. On the surface that makes sense. But in my case my salary was vastly greater when our divorce was finalized than when we were married. In addition her salary his a great deal higher now than when we were married. The end effect is that she has a better quality of life (in terms of money) now that we're divorced than when we were married (I do, too). In addition to the child support I have to pay for 63% of all child-related expenses. Day care, medical bills, school shit, you name it.
And even though I think she's a cunt I don't blame her for that. It's our fucking court system.
If you don't have children there is alimony. But my attorney informed me that alimony doesn't even come into play unless you've been married for much longer than 10 years (at least in my state, SD).
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:49PM
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I feel for you, that's unfair situation regarding the money. Good that you are allowed to be with the child(ren). I'm glad in my country is not like this. Or maybe I should say it was not when I divorced (10+ years ago). The obligatory child support here is so small it is a joke even for poor people. Also the court cannot force someone to pay even if he gives nothing at all (yeah, "great" justice system here). Alimony (I didn't know this word, thank you) is almost non-existent, only if mutually agreed. I am not forced to pay anything besides the monthly hard amount of cash. However I do pay voluntarily mostly because I want my children to have good teeth, nice shoes etc. I don't give her the money, I just take the kids to the dentist or take her with us when going to the mall (I hate choosing shoes). In effect that makes her much more cooperative with me. I tend to doubt she would be like this if she could force me to give her the money. If I had no choice she would think it's *her* money in first place and there is nothing to be grateful.
The kids cannot maintain the same quality of life after the divorce because the love is gone. Children are much more in need of love and attention than of money. Even during puberty when it is a great deal of prestiege what clothes and phone they have, the self-esteem is best fueled with parents love and patience. Of course the courts could not care less about that, they say it's "parents choice" and the topic is closed. That's why I'm saying the divorce is "split the money and the children".
I wish all the best for you and your children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:40PM
> Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I feel for you, that's unfair situation regarding the money.
That guy is talking about child support as if it is spousal support. You shouldn't take him at his word, at best he's spinning it. Child support is about maintaining the quality of life the children deserve due to the economic status of their parents. It doesn't stop being calculated at the date of the break-up or even the date of the divorce because children are dependents even without full custody. Substantial changes in the economic status of either parent long after the divorce is complete can still affect the level of child support because the kids are still dependents of both parents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2015, @02:54AM
The reality is that the child support is often spent by the ex on her own living expenses and the little luxuries like weed, cigarettes and alcohol, then she will spend the minimum amount on the children. Certainly that's the case for me, I pay $500 per month and she uses it to part pay the rent. The child sees very little of it directly, and she still has the hide to ask for more when she runs short. Then I find myself in the position of having to give her money to make sure the child is not disadvantaged because I can assure you that "she comes first" (her own words). So now I buy my son stuff when he is with me rather than giving her additional money which she will only blow on herself. It's outrageous. I spent a year fighting for custody but our DHS said "children belong with their mother, doesn't matter how useless she is".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:49PM
> But are they still forced to pay ("support") to the ex-partner every month if it was no-fault divorce?
Spousal support is distinct from fault. When both spouses are able to support themselves then not so much - for example my friend is an engineer, he divorced his wife of about 13 years. She has an engineering degree but hadn't worked professionally after their first child was born - he worked for a salary, she worked supporting the family and home. The court required him to pay spousal support for a couple of years as she recovered from being out of the job market, but regardless of her success at that recovery the court imposed a hard deadline for the end of spousal support. There divorce was about 5 years ago in Boston.
A couple where one spouse never left the job market (nor taken a lesser job in order to spend their time supporting the other spouse in their career) is unlikely to have any spousal support payments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dcollins on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:43AM
Reuters: "Hackers dumped online personal details of more than a million users of infidelity website AshleyMadison.com, tech websites reported on Tuesday, the latest high-profile cyber attack that threatens to wreak strife in relationships across the globe... the dump was massive, according to Troy Hunt, a Microsoft security expert, who said more than 1 million unique email addresses were attached to payment records."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/19/us-ashleymadison-cybersecurity-idUSKCN0QN2BN20150819 [reuters.com]
So maybe they only released a 1M-person sliver of the overall database, and held the rest back? Or it has a block of payment records with 1M unique emails?
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:50AM
So it means the chances are 1/37 that some user get busted. That's staggering 2.7% chance! The downside is that 10GB/1M=10k which means the leak may contain the nasty sext messages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:56PM
The payment records cover 2008 through mid 2015.
They don't appear to be radically redacted, obviously it is impossible to say if specific transactions were deleted before release.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:00PM
I haven't looked into it but if the files are compressed and textual, there could be several times more uncompressed data.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:12AM
Marry girl children.
Not "Ashley Madison"s
Can't believe cunts decide anything they do is wonderfun, including adultery.
Hans Reiser did nothing wrong.
He did the correct thing under the Law of the God of Deuteronomy.
I'm happy he killed Nina Reiser. She looked to cuck him, he wasn't having that. She is dead. I pray the cunts that support her meet a similar fate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @10:59AM
Surprised no one picked up on the biggest scam of all. We'd already discussed this story once earlier, and my point of view got bludgeoned by the Soylent masses.
But did no one see that on the site, 95% of the profiles were men? They were set up! That site made it seem like women and men would both be able to benefit from Ashley Madison's services, when in reality there were practically no women on the site. That means millions and millions of rich, licentious men were all duped into spending money on a site where there were practically no women to meet!
Best business model ever. I'm glad they got torpedoed out of the water: fuck you, Ashley Madison, you lying, dirty whore.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 3, Touché) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday August 19 2015, @11:54AM
> fuck you, [...], you lying, dirty whore.
That was exactly the official site moto, it was just politically correct: "Have an affair!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 19 2015, @11:55AM
That's not remotely a surprise. The fact is that men are much more willing to pay for sex than women, and that's what Ashley Madison's business model amounts to.
This may be at least partially related to an experiment they ran once in Europe, where they had attractive-looking people ask complete strangers for heterosexual sex: The women got about a 60% "yes" response, the men about a 1%.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:15PM
The only pick-up line a woman will ever need:
You! Pants off! Now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:04PM
I have one pick-up line which never works. If I'm at a club and I see a guy I like I smile and if he smiles back and I feel really comfortable I'll walk over and say, "Stick it in!"
-- Margaret Cho
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:46PM
That reminds me of a quote from "What Up, Pussycat?" a pretty crap 1960s movie that was Woody Allen's debut as Victor Skakupopulus.
Michael James: Did you find a job?
Victor Skakapopulis: Yeah, I got something at the striptease. I help the girls dress and undress.
Michael James: Nice job.
Victor Skakapopulis: Twenty francs a week.
Michael James: Not very much.
Victor Skakapopulis: It's all I can afford.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:10PM
I am thinking most dating sites are schlong fests.
I met my wife thru one. She would have a couple HUNDRED matches. I had maybe a dozen. The few other women I actually met thru it said the same thing. They had hundreds to pick from.
Approaching women is a 'gamble' of ego. Hell I had one set of girls call me a pedo. Because I had the audacity of walking by them. I went with a dating site as at least you have people are somewhat serious about a relationship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2015, @04:19AM
Marry young girls.
When men ruled you could.
Now cunts rule.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:35PM
How to Check if You or a Loved One Were Exposed in the Ashley Madison Hack
You can search through the data dumped last night by the hackers who hit Ashley Madison by visiting this site [trustify.info], which was launched yesterday by Trustify, an Internet investigation service that tailors to romantic suspicions. Or, if you prefer, you could use this tool [haveibeenpwned.com]. Or this one [cynic.al]. Or this one [ashleymadisonleaked.com]. All you have to do is enter an email, any email, and see if it was hacked. In the case of all but the “have i been pwned” site, finding the email on the list means yes, there was an Ashley Madison account tied to it.
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/check-loved-one-exposed-ashley-madison-hack/ [wired.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."