Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
socialist

Ashley Madison Data Dump

Recommended Posts

http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-russia-china-and-nsa-files-2015-6

Snowden, of course, denies it but the Russians are not sheltering him out the goodness of their hearts. He gave the material they wanted.

That's a load of self-serving crap. They don't actually know what information the Russians obtained, and were heavily invested in making these sorts of allegations against Snowden at the time, as a means of trying to fight the PR battle. I think that if we revisit the "Snowden" thread, we'll find that many of these self-serving statements from US and UK intelligence big-heads were debunked as quickly as they were issued.

And does it really pass the smell-test that on-contract computer operators at the data center in Utah can just log on to the server and download lists of top-secret in-field operatives? Really? REALLY???

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not a fan of the institution of marriage? Why not?

Why would I be?

Personally, I don't think that the government should define what is or isn't marriage and shouldn't give people special benefits based upon marital status.

People should be treated as individuals and be equal under the law. I also find the idea that your spouse somehow has a monopoly on who you can have sex with bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I be?

Personally, I don't think that the government should define what is or isn't marriage and shouldn't give people special benefits based upon marital status.

People should be treated as individuals and be equal under the law. I also find the idea that your spouse somehow has a monopoly on who you can have sex with bizarre.

I guess no one is forced to get married...are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess no one is forced to get married...are they?

No, but due to tax and insurance benefits, there are strong financial incentives to get married.

I have an older cousin who lives together with his partner and has two kids. Yet they are not married and don't want to be. Why should my cousin and his partner pay more in taxes than an equivalent married couple because they choose not to get married?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I agree that he is the scum of the planet, however, he signed up to this site, with fully consenting adults. This isn't about him on a personal level, it's a far wider issue. What about privacy issues? Is there a threshold that we cross to expose individuals to behaviour that we don't approve of? You exposed his behaviour because of his U.S. connections. Where do we draw the line?

Well, first off "I" didn't expose anything. I posted what's currently one of the biggest stories on social media. This genie was out of the bottle without my help.

The Duggars are public figures and activists. They're using their fame to promote their social and religious views. Fair game.

This week the Duggars were meeting with execs at the TLC network to pitch the idea of a new TV show where Ma and Pa Duggar provide counselling to victims of sexual assault, calling upon their experience counselling Josh and his sisters. That's a fact. If the Duggars want to continue to promote their social and religious views in this way, their private problems are fair topics for public discussion.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does it really pass the smell-test that on-contract computer operators at the data center in Utah can just log on to the server and download lists of top-secret in-field operatives? Really?

Does it pass the smell test that top secret emails could be sitting on server in bathroom of a politically connected 'boutique' IT service company? Does it pass the smell test that a government agency knew about arabs taking flying lessons prior to 9/11 but did not do anything? Governments and bureaucrats screw up all of the time and it certainly is possible that Snowden had access to data he should not have. I don't personally believe the Russians got nothing other than PR out of Snowden and it is naive for anyone to assume otherwise. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but due to tax and insurance benefits, there are strong financial incentives to get married.

I have an older cousin who lives together with his partner and has two kids. Yet they are not married and don't want to be. Why should my cousin and his partner pay more in taxes than an equivalent married couple because they choose not to get married?

But by paying more in taxes they are doing more for the collective good of the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 15,000 accounts used email addresses ending in .mil or .gov, indicating a member of the U.S. military or U.S. government employee;

273,320 email addresses ending in “.ca,” indicating a Canada-based domain;

163 accounts used emails ending in @forces.gc.ca, the domain used by the Canadian military;

Hundreds of email addresses are associated with Canadian federal departments and agencies, including justice, public works, the Canada Revenue Agency and the RCMP.

At least one Canadian MP was registered by name. Several email addresses attached to the Senate were registered although not under any sitting senators’ names.

There were also municipal government email addresses, including 78 in Toronto, 41 in Ottawa and 32 in Calgary. Dozens of university email addresses are also included.

In the U.K., 92 Ministry of Defence email addresses showed up, as well as 1,716 from universities and colleges;

In a testament to the unreliability of the data, [email protected] was among the email addresses. Ashley Madison does not verify email addresses, allowing users to sign up with whatever email they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an older cousin who lives together with his partner and has two kids. Yet they are not married and don't want to be. Why should my cousin and his partner pay more in taxes than an equivalent married couple because they choose not to get married?

How are they paying more in tax for being common law rather than married?

What sections of the Income Tax Act apply differently to married people as compared to C/L?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first off "I" didn't expose anything. I posted what's currently one of the biggest stories on social media. This genie was out of the bottle without my help.

-k

I agree with Kimmy on this.

For Kimmy's sake, here is an interesting read on this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/19/josh-duggar-had-a-paid-ashley-madison-account-says-gawker/

Interesting because Gawker was awful towards that guy at Conde.

But Josh Duggar - yep, here's a DB fully deserving of the attention for being a hypocritical social con.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sections of the Income Tax Act apply differently to married people as compared to C/L?

No idea. I'm not an accountant. This whole nonsense would be a lot simpler if we just had a flat tax.

They live together now, but let's say they separate and stop living together. Why should they pay more in tax than a separated married couple?

Edit: also, common law marriage is a whole other bag of worms because if two people choose not to get married, why should the state force them to be 'married'. It goes against consent.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They live together now, but let's say they separate and stop living together. Why should they pay more in tax than a separated married couple?

No changing the goal posts now: you stated they paid more because they they were C/L rather than married. Nothing was mentioned about being single.

So, without changing the goal posts, what makes you think C/L pay more in tax than married couples?

And remember, I am a tax accountant so I already know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is that information is being reposted from hackers from a legitimate site. It doesn't matter who the member is. The fact you are reposting info from a private member is the issue.

I agree. The hack of the private information is a crime. Just because "it's already out there" doesn't make it OK to redistribute that private information. It's not OK to receive stolen property under the guise of what's done is done.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an odd story. What is this, hackers with a moral code? Are they just trying to embarrass or are they trying to take down the site? What's the goal, or is it just that they did it because they could? I'd love to see these hackers go after child porn sites and collectors. Going after people seeking affairs seems pretty lame. I mean I know that people like Kimmy get their jollies if they can find a screwed up christian involved, but other than that, there's some pretty sick deranged people using the net to spread their crap and make money at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an odd story. What is this, hackers with a moral code? Are they just trying to embarrass or are they trying to take down the site? What's the goal, or is it just that they did it because they could? I'd love to see these hackers go after child porn sites and collectors. Going after people seeking affairs seems pretty lame. I mean I know that people like Kimmy get their jollies if they can find a screwed up christian involved, but other than that, there's some pretty sick deranged people using the net to spread their crap and make money at it.

Duggar is definitely a story because he has made a living telling people to behave more like him if they want to be moral and godly. Yet it turns out that he is a molester and now a cheater, with a secret love nest, who prefers women (well I assume just women, but who knows) skilled with their hands. I suspect that Christians and some on the right are bothered by this because their leaders prove they will be going to hell on a near daily basis. At the start of the Republican Primaries, every candidate made sure to pose with the Duggars...not so much anymore.

I'm not sure why hackers chose Ashley Madison. It could be that the president/owner happens to be a bit of an asshat, or maybe just because they could. Hacker groups often attack targets they find repugnant, like fossil fuel companies and major corporations that treat their workers poorly. Hey I believe Anonymous said they would be releasing the real reason John Baird abruptly left politics. That will be interesting, if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite news from the Ashley Madison hack is that family values activist Josh Duggar had an Ashley Madison account!

-k

All that family values garbage is nothing more than marketing for the gullible. These people don't give a crap about the values they espouse. That nonsense is just to buy votes from the naive. You know, the median IQ is 100. In a two party race, you only need 50% of the vote. It doesn't matter if it comes from the bottom of that bell curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does it really pass the smell-test that on-contract computer operators at the data center in Utah can just log on to the server and download lists of top-secret in-field operatives? Really? REALLY???

-k

You'd be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an odd story. What is this, hackers with a moral code? Are they just trying to embarrass or are they trying to take down the site? What's the goal, or is it just that they did it because they could? I'd love to see these hackers go after child porn sites and collectors. Going after people seeking affairs seems pretty lame.

Well, lots of people hate what Ashley Madison stands for. Their slogan is "Life's short. Have an affair." They're literally promoting adultery. Perhaps it was motivated by a philosophical hatred of what Ashley Madison does, perhaps it was personal revenge from somebody whose family was hurt by an affair that started on Ashley Madison. Or maybe they just did it because it was there. Who really knows. Lots of hackers are motivated by a sense of morality, though. Aaron Swartz was motivated by the belief that information should be shared. The hacker who outed the Steubenville football rapists case will probably spend more time in jail than the actual rapists.

I mean I know that people like Kimmy get their jollies if they can find a screwed up christian involved, but other than that, there's some pretty sick deranged people using the net to spread their crap and make money at it.

I don't hate all Christians, Sharkman, just the ones who go around attacking other people who don't share their beliefs.

If this were some regular Christian who was unhappy in their marriage or made a mistake or whatever, I would take no joy in it.

But since this happens to be a guy who was the executive director of a political lobby group that spent its time attacking rights for gay people under the pretense that gay marriage is destroying traditional marriage.

You know what destroys traditional marriage? Josh Duggar.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but due to tax and insurance benefits, there are strong financial incentives to get married.

I have an older cousin who lives together with his partner and has two kids. Yet they are not married and don't want to be. Why should my cousin and his partner pay more in taxes than an equivalent married couple because they choose not to get married?

People who live in common-law relationships also get tax benefits etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are talking past each other here. Kimmy's saying, "Hey here's this interesting point in all of this." While other people are speaking more broadly to privacy concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've listened to a marriage/divorce lawyer and she said in Ontario, at least, when a spouse dies, that person's kids get half of the estate and the common-inlaw partner the other half, unless it says differently in the Will. Also, if there are kids involve and both adults are financially taking care of them, if the couple split, the parent can go after the other for support for that child/children, even if the kids are not bio. theirs and after 3 years, governments consider the couple "married", at least for tax reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite news from the Ashley Madison hack is that family values activist Josh Duggar had an Ashley Madison account!

So did Barak Obama. I don't think anyone can draw an conclusions from someone's name being included in the dump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...