• Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Question of the Week #9: Hackers Leak Ashley Madison Data on the Dark Web

This whole thing raises a lot of red flags... a lot of those celebrity e-mails are not real and/or not actually ran by those respective people. This whole thing is so fishy to the point it raises the bull**** meter to all new heights. Half of the celebrities or government related people on there are too vast to be even considered as likely. They also don't use e-mails that are so obvious that they would be spammed by fans. They also wouldn't use professional e-mails for this but rather their personal e-mails to avoid getting caught. I think it's safe to say that most of these are troll accounts. Yet alone to even consider that all these people have time to waste on a site like this.

Is there actual physical evidence that this is real and not a fabricated troll? The amount of names on this site that reek of bull**** is quite stinky. I for one, question the whole authenticity of this leak. Sure it could be real, but I doubt half of those accounts have any credibility to them. That is just my take on this development.
Well, all the articles I have read say that the authorities confirmed the dump itself is real. However, as the article I quoted above says, the website allows users to join with whichever email they like - they don't require email verification to access the site.

I imagine it would be easy to distinguish the troll accounts from real accounts. Trolls aren't going to post their credit card info, real names, addresses, etc. Especially in cases of politicians and celebrities, you can't assume it was actually them and not someone messing around. Even President Obama's email is on there - but the chance it was actually him is close to zero.
 
Well, all the articles I have read say that the authorities confirmed the dump itself is real. However, as the article I quoted above says, the website allows users to join with whichever email they like - they don't require email verification to access the site.

I imagine it would be easy to distinguish the troll accounts from real accounts. Trolls aren't going to post their credit card info, real names, addresses, etc. Especially in cases of politicians and celebrities, you can't assume it was actually them and not someone messing around. Even President Obama's email is on there - but the chance it was actually him is close to zero.

That is pretty much what I was thinking. I didn't realise that authorities said it was real. To be honest, I have never even heard of that site until I read this here, and on VGchartz. I spend a lot of time on the internet so I am rather surprised.

I agree that it is easy to make troll accounts and that was kind of what I was thinking. lmao I've heard someone say that they actually believe that the Hillary Clinton account is real! xD
 
1) Where the 'hackivists' right to leak this information?
2) Do the users of this site deserved to be exposed?
3) What punishments should the hackers face, if caught?
4) How would you react if someone you knew was on the website?
1) Of course not. Not legal and not even morally right. And since the website don't require verification of the email addresses, we can assume that a lot of the information is false. Anyone can impersonate anyone.

2) No they don't deserve to be exposed to the general public. And we can't even be sure that the alleged users are real, it is likely a lot of false identities. And anyone who used their real name there are stupid.

3) Ritual murder.

4) I would not react. I would think that the leaked information is not proving anything, it is slander.



Well, according to data, men outnumber women on the website 6-1.
It reads in your opening post that 30% are women. That is the correct number?
 
It seems like this whole thread turned into everyone wagging their fingers at all involved parties.

I kind of wish one of us had decided to play devil's advocate.
 
I don't know why I can't seem to think today but what's the devil's advocate position?
In this case, it would be arguing that the hackers were justified. That the company's service did not deserve privacy because of its nature. In short, arguing that people have a right to attack others by their own means if you happen to have a problem with how they do business.

Side note: the hackers released a Q&A
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/as...out-nobody-was-watching?utm_source=vicenewsfb

It sounds like the company was very dishonest with the promises it made to users reharding both secrecy and what information they stored.

If the reports on profit margins are true, they have no excuse for not investing more in better security, but I have a feeling they would have been hacked regardless so it's kind of a moot point for the hackers to make. The hackers just want people to focus their disgust more on the company and less on them, I think.
Like, come on. If you're going to play the villain at least have the balls to act the part.
 
Last edited:
In this case, it would be arguing that the hackers were justified. That the company's service did not deserve privacy because of its nature. In short, arguing that people have a right to attack others by their own means if you happen to have a problem with how they do business.
Yeah, that's why I think the hackers can't really win no matter how they'd like to spin it. If they have the right to hack into the site because they're unhappy with the premise of the business, then I have an equal right to break into a factory farm and release all the animals. What's the difference? Both are criminal because you're encroaching on private property.

Not that I wouldn't love to do so, mind you - but I also don't want to see the inside of a prison anytime soon. I dun want no broomsticks up my butt.

If the reports on profit margins are true, they have no excuse for not investing more in better security, but I have a feeling they would have been hacked regardless so it's kind of a moot point for the hackers to make. The hackers just want people to focus their disgust more on the company and less on them, I think.
Like, come on. If you're going to play the villain at least have the balls to act the part.
I agree - I think these hackers would have done so regardless of how easy the security was to crack. Obviously they were already a target. Besides, who knows if what they're saying is even true in the first place?
 
It reads in your opening post that 30% are women. That is the correct number?
Saw this article published by CBC - it gives a little more insight into how many women used the website.
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 to12,069 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.
Members had to pay to have their accounts deleted, although it appears from the data dump that the data was retained.

  • 12,108 women's accounts are listed as paid-delete, compared to173,838 men's accounts.
But there's evidence that Ashley Madison had female members, at least in San Fransciso.

Ashley Madison is an online dating service for married people seeking affairs. But only about 15 per cent of the members are women. (Eric Foss/CBC)

The relationship writer Charles Orlando joined the website for research purposes, he says. The fake profile he created had 20 messages by the first night. In 2011 he wrote that within days of joining he had chat sessions with 33 different women (he wonders), three of whom he eventually met.

And Jeremy Adam Smith writes in San Francisco Magazine, after the data dump, about five women he knows in the Bay Area who joined Ashley Madison.

Ashley Madison's own data shows San Francisco with the smallest share of the population as members, out of 22 U.S. cities. Members make up 0.7 per cent of the city's population, while membership in Austin, Texas and Pittsburgh accounts for 5.6 per cent of their population.

David Evans, an online dating industry consultant, says that other websites that are for sex hook-ups, like Adult Friend Finder or Fling.com, also have hardly any real women members.
 
So almost only women are actually using that site. Each woman having affairs with 100 men? I doubt it. It makes me wonder what all those men are up to...? Lol.
 
Saw this article published by CBC - it gives a little more insight into how many women used the website.
So almost only women are actually using that site. Each woman having affairs with 100 men? I doubt it. It makes me wonder what all those men are up to...? Lol.
I'm definitely going to attribute that to women having an easier time in general getting laid.

And also, come on guys. How dumb could you be? We all see those ads for "the facebook of porn!" and "horny girls near you!" 99% of us know to never take that seriously. I remember one time when I moved, I noticed that the "hot singles near you!" magically happened to be the same people hundreds of miles away (the photos were the same). That may come off as obvious but, hey, I was young.
 
Back
Top Bottom