back to article Why Nobody Should Ever Search The Ashley Madison Data

Some readers of the Register – or perhaps their spouses or significant others, or their bosses or colleagues or other people who may think they want to know if someone is "trustworthy" – may have heard that it is now possible to search online for evidence that a person may have been using the website Ashley Madison. Some users …

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: Maybe...

@ 1980s_coder

We get it. You don't like Microsoft. But do you have to make such lame fucking comments on threads that have nothing to do with them as well as on threads that do, where we can avoid them because they are about Microsoft and sure as eggs is eggs they will contain lame fucking comments such as this? Have you nothing better to think about such as the fluff in your belly button? FFS! Now look what you made me do...

1
0
Anonymous Coward

A Journalist Who Just Happened To Find This Interesting

So El Reg is now employing the services of a DM journalist and that's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

2
2

Re: A Journalist Who Just Happened To Find This Interesting

Have to say I'm appalled that El Reg gave this 'article' editorial space.

12
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'm appalled

On my part, I think the article was rather well played - mixing up sensible advice with self-serving justification so that you could never quite work out what the angle was (or was about to change to).

But not a style to everyone's taste, apparently :-)

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I'm appalled

You being the bastard wot dun it to us?

TW?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: A Journalist Who Just Happened To Find This Interesting

Have to say I'm appalled by anyone being appalled by something that falls far short of murder, torture, rape, or anything that involves hurting something that doesn't want to be hurt. Exactly what appalls you?

1
0
Silver badge

Wait, what?

Are you seriously suggesting that it should be okay to have extramarital sex because of the unexpected medical condition of your wife being pregnant?

Un-fucking-believable.

12
13
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Wait, what?

"Pregnancy" covers the whole process through childbirth and possible complications, and a few women find they don't like/want sex afterwards.

If you read the article again you will notice the main moral point was for consenting couples who wish to stay together for any of various reasons, but are not having sex for whatever reason(s) and one of them still wants to.

2
4
Silver badge

Downvotes ahoy!!!

Enough. There are way too many people coming up with way too many sick sad sorry excuses to try to justify this.

Yes, relationships can be messy, and yes some people may prefer to have sex with others instead of formally splitting up. But, you know, affairs and polygamy existed before the Internet. If this is a consensual thing, why not try to pull at a bar, supermarket, whatever, as opposed to a website that appears to exist specifically to hook up people in affairs. This isn't a regular dating site, remember. Try to keep that in mind....along with the obvious moral of the story - Internet security. Oxymoron.

1
5
Vic
Joke

Re: Wait, what?

"Pregnancy" covers the whole process through childbirth and possible complications, and a few women find they don't like/want sex afterwards.

Yeah, give 'em a few hours, FFS...

Vic.

13
0
Silver badge

Re: Wait, what?

That was one of the signs that this was definitely a joke, obviously.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Wait, what?

Heyrick: it's the word "seriously" in your first post that makes you part of the act, rather than part of the audience.

Do you seriously think this article was meant "seriously"?

3
0
Anonymous Coward

I'm thinking "researcher" must be the most dangerous profession.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

...or the most transparent and hackneyed excuse?

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Rumbled

I admit it was me who may have used your details as test entries in the database, yours and a few other journalists at various times and using mixed payment methods. I may also have used emails similar to yours and those of others too, to enable test interactions that would closely simulate real world activity for the purpose of research.

Yours, not the author, paid by him, nor with direct interest in him remaining in paid employment.

5
0
Silver badge

Say what????

The first three on the surface seemed (for some value of 'seemed') like legitimate reasons... the fourth seemed to be a rant. But then again, I don't care who's on it. I just know a lot of folks justly or injustly are going to get burnt and without the various "helpful" sites like Trustify or the nearest spamming miscreant doing whatever shiite they might try.

0
4
Silver badge
WTF?

It's meant to be a joke, FFS!

Why is it that so many commentards seem to be completely incapable of identifying (an attempt at) humour in an article? Jeez...

11
2
Boffin

Re: It's meant to be a joke, FFS!

Because it wasn't funny?

31
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: it wasn't funny?

It was - but only in a homeopathic dosage

4
0
Silver badge

Re: It's meant to be a joke, FFS!

"It wasn't funny"

Most of us can still spot even an un-funny joke, and this was clearly not serious in so many ways, although there were a few sensible points in there to throw us off the scent.

5
0

9 gig dump

Its huge, Had a little look to see what the fuss was about looking on torrent sites that are not blocked.

still awaiting for said "Virus" to turn up

3
0
Silver badge

Re: 9 gig dump

Most people will not get the torrent and try to load it in to a database themselves. They will go to one of many scam sites set up to offer such a service and you can bet your bottom dollar that most of them are in it for the money (yours) by any means possible.

The article is really aimed at the unwashed masses using partially patched Windows boxes with Flash installed on auto-play, not El Reg readers who are likely to have somewhat hardened machines.

0
3
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Whoosh?

Apparently I am the only one to find this entertaining.

More of a weekend article, perhaps, but some of the hypocritical justifications sounded sadly true to life. The warnings about virus infections and email address harvesting are not too far fetched, either.

Oh, and as it happens I know both the author and his partner and am happy to realise that I am about to receive a totally unsolicited long term loan offer to participate (in a passive way) in the ongoing research project. Euros preferred unless printed in Greece.

12
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Whoosh?

"I know both the author and his partner"

Pray tell

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

Pray tell.....

.......whoooosh....I keep hearing that sound...........

2
0

Re: Whoosh?

I didn't really find it very funny. If that was the intention, then I think it was just a bit too subtle to succeed. Worse than that, I think it is open to misinterpretation due to the fact that many people scan articles rather than read them (especially when longer than one web page).

If it was intended to also get a serious point across, then I think the sweeping statement that looking at AM data is worse than adultery missed out on one critical exception. Some people do get involved in relationships in which one partner is being unfaithful and the other member just wants to know the truth. Is the search of truth then also worse than becoming an AM member? I think not.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother searching the data. I get enough information just by reading the commentary around the whole affair (if you will excuse the rather bad pun).

5
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Whoosh?

This can get funnier if you send it to some non-tech colleagues and see which ones seem relieved and/or nod their heads.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Whoosh?

"A bit too subtle to succeed" - depends on your criteria for "success", obviously. I thought it succeeded pretty well.

"Open to misinterpretation because people can't be bothered to read it properly (but can still take time out to log in and post half-arsed judgmental comments about it)" really says more about those readers than the writer.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

"too subtle to succeed"

Subtle like a brick.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I guess I'm not the only person wondering if the journalist or his boss is on this list lol

5
1
Anonymous Coward

It's a bit like wet paint, put a sign up saying don't touch and what's going to happen? I'm half tempted to download and stick it in a sandbox vm for research purposes of course then again it does smell a bit like a honey pot.

0
0
Coat

"Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."

― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

13
0
Anonymous Coward

a few counterpoints

....

oh, I see. Well, I AM impressed, nicely done! :)

1
0

can't be a joke

Article can't be a joke as the first bits are right - for the majority of non-IT literate people. On El reg, however, it just comes across as school boyish and shrill.

Most people should avoid AM sites like the plague as they will be ID harvesters or malware ridden. Most El reg readers will know where to go for this kind of material with low risk.

The moralising and finger-pointing is poor.

This article would be perfect for the Daily Fail.

3
6

Re: can't be a joke

It's like looking out for buses. Yes, getting hit by one is messy. It doesn't mean you never cross the road.

0
0
Thumb Down

Humour?

Either a lame attempt at humour or the author has been at the paint thinner...

7
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Humour?

A tenner on the paint thinner theory being the explanation, please

2
0
Anonymous Coward

the reactions

(mixed) in the commentardie show the obvious (meh), i.e. humour is... cont... yawn... sub... yawn... whatever.

(I applaud).

4
0
Anonymous Coward

and for God's sake

DO read at least some of the enlightened comments by the beacon of modern morality, Mr Glenn Greenwald, as mentioned and lavishly quoted in the text above:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/20/puritanical-glee-ashley-madison-hack/

2
0
Thumb Down

Humour piece? More like troll piece. Remarkably un-amusing.

F - see me after class

7
4
Anonymous Coward

Didn't Hacking Team warn about the 'virus' in its dump too?

And we all laughed loud at it.

It's also funny how digging into Sony and Hacking Team dumps - just to name the two last big ones - was OK, while into AM is not OK.... why, because there are many journalists also? And journalists performing 'researches' with their own identifiable data???

Or this is a joke, or this is a desperate attempt at damage control.- and a ugly one.

0
2
LDS
Silver badge

Reading it accurately it does indeed look a joke. The attempt to show that actually only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of site users are actually cheater, that almost all credit cards number were stolen ones (why would crooks waste them this way?), that all the cheaters had a very good reason and partner permission, especially that unforeseen illness called 'pregnancy' as a valid excuse ('really, I didn't know sex lead to pregnancy').

And everybody of course was very, very careful about sexually transmitted diseases, and not having children with their occasional partner...

And the rant about the military, but still noticing their 'publicly sworn oath' - and, after all, a marriage is too a publicly sworn oath you do because you choose it.

Also, that identifying an hypocritical politician is good (especially if it raises the journo notoriety, status and pay), while identifying your hypocritical partner is not.

And really, the closing lines about the moral standard asserting that wanting to know if your partner cheated you is worse than actually cheating. That's the real true old moral standard, when women had to accept silently their partner cheats, violence and so on... because as long as everything was 'secret' it was OK.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

The Important Fact

There's a lot of hype about the AM spew; nothing about the internet being a cesspool of predators is news to anyone. But we should take note of yet more proof that pay dating/meetup/affair sites are a wast of money because THEY HAVE NO WOMEN USERS SEEKING MEN! Ashley Madison's list indicates at most 14% women - less than 10% in most countries - and once you subtract the prostitutes and gold-diggers, there's nothing to be had for your hard currency.

The truism remains: Anyone who says they'll get you love (or laid) for cash is either a lying crook or a pimp or whore.

ANYONYMOUS COWARD WHO NEVER PAID FOR ANYTHING

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: The Important Fact

ANYTHING? AC?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: The Important Fact

Oi! Whoring is an honest trade, and I resent it being bracketed with crooks.

Pimps are a borderline case, it's a sometimes necessary job but one that's generally conducted by nasty people. Much like debt collection, or cold calling.

0
0

Well, that's the longest troll I've ever seen, TWO pages? that must be a record even for the Reg.

Went too far with this bit though, "the brave, righteous – and in many cases only tangentially or professionally involved – people identifiable in the AM data"

Good effort though even if it did read like something Stephen Fry would have written.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

2 pages

possibly it did get out of hand towards the end, but it had to be overdone, this is what satire does, twisting the original. On top of this, make it more subtle, and nobody would haver guessed (and for God's sake, think of the downvotes!!!!)

5
1
Silver badge

One wonders ...

... how much harder "A Journalist Who Just Happened To Find This Interesting" could possibly back-peddle faster.

Seriously, dude/tte, you could have stood on roof roof & yelled "I'm tired of my spouse!" at the top of your lungs. Would have been simpler and faster, and none of your colleagues would have been any the wiser.

1
6
Anonymous Coward

You are to blame, not AM users

Nice one. You should have just used Bong's byline.

"If you do this you'll get a virus and your name will be leaked and and and..."

The last one is hilarious. British readers will remember the MPs expenses scandal, when the Daily Telegraph bought a stolen database with all their expenses in, and mined it, and published it. I don't recall a huge outcry along the lines of "but it's stolen data, we have no right to look at it, anyone who looks at it is evil think of their poor children being bullied at school what about the suicide risks?" We read it, examined it, and judged people based on how they appeared in it.

Or the Snowden files. Nobody is disputing that the owners of those would rather you didn't know what was in them.

Or the BNP leak. Loads of people searched through that for friends and colleagues. And it's hard to argue that many people on that list would rather not have it broadcast far and wide.

So this is far from the first major embarrassing data leak. So why treat this one differently? Why the sudden outbreak of "this is awful, those awful awful hackers. How dare they?" Is it that this is the first leak which has "normal" people's details in? You know, normal people. People who like to snoop on others, but keep their own details private. Anonymous Coward-type people.

Because.

3
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018