Hackers appear to have made good on a threat to leak information on over 30 million users of AshleyMadison.com, a hook-up site geared toward cheating spouses, reports LaTi.
The mysterious hackers, known as The Impact Team, released a trove of data Tuesday that included full names, street addresses and some credit card information, according to LaTi.
“The database dump appears to be legitimate and contains usernames, passwords, credit card data (last four), street addresses, full names, and much much more,” Dave Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec, said in a blog post.
It boggles my mind but the anti-IP crowd does not view the breaking into AshleyMadison.com computers as trespass or theft, since AshleyMadison.com "still has the information" they were trying to keep confidential on their computers.
-RW
Can someone explain trespass of property (NAP violation) when someone uses the internet to obtain a copy of data on a hard drive? Whenever I go on any website I am copying their data from their computer to mine. So what is the difference in the case of "hacking"?
ReplyDeleteAre you okay with the NSA's bulk collection of private data? The government can use this same argument.
DeleteData stored on a web server that is not intended to be seen by the general public is akin to activity taking place in the backyard -- not intended for public access. If effective safeguards are not taken someone may see the activity. Seeing the activity does no harm to the doers. Seeing the data does no harm either. Neither is a violation of the NAP (Can you imagine seeing some such activity inadvertently and being hanged as a result?)
DeleteIt the use of the data/information obtained that may constitute a NAP violation. Taking a physical credit card deprives the owner of his right to use it, thus is a violation. Seeing the numbers alone does not constitute a NAP violation -- obtaining money or goods by fraudulent use of it is.
"Entrusting" your personal data to some internet site (or in packets in the IP traffic) foolish as it potentially is giving access to it to the whole world. If your private, personal information is collected and held on a server without your consent or knowledge the party doing so HAS ALREADY HARMED YOU and has violated the NAP.
It's the difference between inviting someone over for dinner or having someone break in and steal your food.
DeleteI find it amazing that you still promote your willful ignorance and confusion over I.P.
ReplyDeleteHow's that definitive tome coming?
limelemon ... using your example, going onto a public website and obtaining publicly released data is the same as if some property owner gave you permission to hang out on his or her property (ie going into a restaurant or store or whatever). However, hacking into and taking data without the website owner's permission would be like breaking in and walking around inside the restaurant. Even if you left without taking anything and didn't damage the door or lock in the process, you still have trespassed. In the case here, it would be more like breaking into the store, making copies of all of the files and leaving. You left all the original files, but you still stole data (and trespassed).
ReplyDeleteCall be a dinosaur but its the fact that they have 32 million accounts that blows my mind (to heck with the IP angle). I goggled the number of marriages in the US and it currently stands at about 59 million. Am I correct then in pointing out this means 54% of married people have an "Adultery" account with this service? UGGGG. Is there anybody out there thats happily married?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing. However according to this Wired article, 90-95% of the users are men, with lots of fake women profiles. I think there's lots of happy marriages in America. I have one and know lots of others.
DeleteI had heard of that Ashley Madison site before. I thought they sold women's makeup. I guess I'm not hip on all this cheating spouse stuff.
lol...you make an interesting point. One thing that could really sway those statistics though is the possibility that a great number of those unhappy marriages have BOTH spouses cruising for affairs.
DeleteAlso, I was also reading someplace that there is a strong possibility of a large number of fictitious female accounts created on Ashley Madison as opposed to male accounts.(think corporate/customer fraud)
I'm sure divorce attorney's are licking their chops over the whole affair(pun intended).
Ah. I see. The author makes no distinction between the act of break-in (which does involve unauthorized manipulation of PHYSICAL property, i.e. the servers) and so is clearly is a form of criminal trespass, and the copying of information which does not involve *any* physical property owned by the "injured" party (which is what the concept of the so-called "intellectual property" is concerned with - and where it comes straight up to conflict with physical property rights).
ReplyDeleteNo, Robert, this is not an "IP" case. This is a trespass case.
A hacking in over a network does involve remote physical control of the machine. Manipulation of physical property does occur. It's much more than photographing documents through a window. Hard drives are commanded to do things, electrons flow through the machine, etc. The energy to carry out the commands of the hacker is billed to the machine's owner. If the threshold is manipulation of physical property, then hacking and copying data does meet that threshold.
Delete