T W A U The Chase, From Yesterday.....
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Anybody Quaking In Their Boots This Morning?
17 Answers
http://
Seriously thought the law needs to get a grip on this theft and blackmail (and I dont mean on just this case). It seems that just because it is data there is a different view and it seems to be seen as a victimless crime.
But then, what 'crimes' do the Police force still classify as crimes? Only easy ones, historical ones or pensioners not paying the lefty tax for the BBC perhaps?
Seriously thought the law needs to get a grip on this theft and blackmail (and I dont mean on just this case). It seems that just because it is data there is a different view and it seems to be seen as a victimless crime.
But then, what 'crimes' do the Police force still classify as crimes? Only easy ones, historical ones or pensioners not paying the lefty tax for the BBC perhaps?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Most of its members are in North America, it has hardly any traction over here, so I doubt anyone will be quaking in their boots here.
It is mot a victimless crime. The victim is ashleymadison.com. Their business is based on trust. Users will leave in droves and not return. The company is in ruins because of this.
The people stealing the data are probably in Russia or North Korea and therefore out of US or British juristiction. And the UK police can only get involved if someone reports this crime to them, which they won't.
Attacking the police for prosecuting paedophiles isn't really helping your a case. The police are not persuing pensioners for not paying the licence fee, because it is not a crime, they get a free lucense.
It is mot a victimless crime. The victim is ashleymadison.com. Their business is based on trust. Users will leave in droves and not return. The company is in ruins because of this.
The people stealing the data are probably in Russia or North Korea and therefore out of US or British juristiction. And the UK police can only get involved if someone reports this crime to them, which they won't.
Attacking the police for prosecuting paedophiles isn't really helping your a case. The police are not persuing pensioners for not paying the licence fee, because it is not a crime, they get a free lucense.
\\\\Most of its members are in North America,\\\\
Where did you see that Gromit? I have seen figures that show a million members are in the UK and that the total members world wide is 37 million.........that's a lot of members.
Our AB spouses are perfectly safe as , observing threads on infidelity over the years, we are a "moral" crowd. No extramarital shenanigans for us eh?
Where did you see that Gromit? I have seen figures that show a million members are in the UK and that the total members world wide is 37 million.........that's a lot of members.
Our AB spouses are perfectly safe as , observing threads on infidelity over the years, we are a "moral" crowd. No extramarital shenanigans for us eh?
// "And with over 37 million members, mostly from the US and Canada, a significant percentage of the population is about to have a very bad day, including many rich and powerful people.” //
The 37 million (and the 1 million UK members) figure will be a vastly inflated number. Not all will be active, and only the brainless would have given accurate personal data.
The 37 million (and the 1 million UK members) figure will be a vastly inflated number. Not all will be active, and only the brainless would have given accurate personal data.
Like wot Gromit said.
It would be considered burglary if the hackers broke into an office and stole the contents of filing cabinets. Because it involves online data - whether truthful or not, being a dating agency - it's still that company's property, and was given by subscribers in the belief it would be safe. I couldn't be r-sed reading the detail of the case but I'm getting an impression that a dollop of US-style hypocrisy about the sanctity of marriage might be behind any US reluctance to take legal action against the hackers.
It would be considered burglary if the hackers broke into an office and stole the contents of filing cabinets. Because it involves online data - whether truthful or not, being a dating agency - it's still that company's property, and was given by subscribers in the belief it would be safe. I couldn't be r-sed reading the detail of the case but I'm getting an impression that a dollop of US-style hypocrisy about the sanctity of marriage might be behind any US reluctance to take legal action against the hackers.
37 million less affairs then from today.
Just off to sell my shares in Durex now.
Gromit, it appears the company has not deleted old records - even thought they charged people to do so.
As for not posting personal details, maybe not but a database would have 'hidden' details such as Credit cards and probably the matching address to go with it to validate it.
Just off to sell my shares in Durex now.
Gromit, it appears the company has not deleted old records - even thought they charged people to do so.
As for not posting personal details, maybe not but a database would have 'hidden' details such as Credit cards and probably the matching address to go with it to validate it.
I have to confess, I had a secret snigger when this was on the news, but very quickly realised that this is a ghastly situation for individuals who stand to lose the trust of their families because of it. I certainly do not agree that this is a victimless crime. Whatever anyone may feel about the morality of the behaviour of the individuals involved, nothing justifies what has been done to them. They are the victims and they have my sympathy.
It is free to register on the site and look for matches. Premium users get make a contact with a match and pay via PayPal. So there will not have 37million credit card details, they will have a fraction of that.
If you tell a third party that you do not know, that you are married but are looking for someone to commit adultory with, and then you give them your credit card details and attached address, then you deserve everything that happens to you as a result.
If you tell a third party that you do not know, that you are married but are looking for someone to commit adultory with, and then you give them your credit card details and attached address, then you deserve everything that happens to you as a result.
The hackers said in a statement: "Avid Life Media has been instructed to take Ashley Madison and Established Men offline permanently in all forms, or we will release all customer records, including profiles with all the customers' secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails.
Gromit - "If you tell a third party that you do not know, that you are married but are looking for someone to commit adultory with, and then you give them your credit card details and attached address, then you deserve everything that happens to you as a result."
That is such a value judgement. "You deserve everything that happens to you"? Really? Nasty. Very nasty.
That is such a value judgement. "You deserve everything that happens to you"? Really? Nasty. Very nasty.
Gromit, because I think it is a case here of repeating two old cliches - "make the punishment fit the crime" and "two wrongs don't make a right". To take the second one first - "two wrongs don't make a right" - the motives of the people who hacked the website involved are questionable. If their motives are based on "restoring morality", then what right do they have to set themselves up as the guardians of marital fidelity? If their motives are blackmail, either for monetary gain, or for "acclaim", then their sense of morality is equally as low as those they are "exposing". On to the first cliche then - "make the punishment fit the crime". Every incidence of marital fidelity is unique. Motivations, lifestyles, relationships, are all different, and the consequences of exposure will have greater or lesser effects, based on these differences. Sadly, these consequences will affect not only the unfaithful spouse who used the website, but also the innocent parties who trusted that person. The consequences are being inflicted upon those who have done no wrong. It is therefore, in my opinion, not appropriate for blanket exposure of all to be thrust upon the innocent families of the users of the website.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Technology5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Brexiteers Destroyed Britains Future,...
News7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.