Ever since I wrote on Thursday about the Ashley Madison hack and resulting reactions and consequences, I’ve heard from dozens of people who used the site. They offer a remarkably wide range of reasons for having done so. I’m posting below one email I received that I find particularly illuminating, which I very lightly edited to correct a few obvious typographical errors.
It gets even worse than this email. There are gay men and women in countries where being gay is punishable by death, who were using this site to meet other gay men and women, in secret. This hack will out them, possibly leading to their death.
This hack and spreading of private information is just as bad as any other, similar hacks. Despicable as it is, cheating is not a crime, and even if it were, do we really want to live in a world with mob justice? And yes, the parent company in this particular case isn’t exactly of clear conscience, but that’s no reason to throw its users under the bus – or have them murdered by barbaric, mediaeval governments.
I know a lot of people like the world to be black and white, because it’s simple, easy to understand, and doesn’t strain the brain. Sadly for them, that’s not how the world works.
I agree that mob rule is no justice.
But I would like to remind Thom that when Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job as Mozilla CEO, you didn’t seem too cut up about mob rule then. In fact, you seemed rather satisfied with the outcome, and called it “the only sensible outcome”.
The fact that you equate Eich’s employees and users openly and legally voicing their concern over a homophobic CEO to criminals hacking into a private company and illegally publishing the private and personal information of millions of users shows that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
The point was that mob rule is either all good, or all bad. It cannot be right for causes you believe in, and bad for causes you disagree with.
Some would say, and I am paraphrasing here, that a person’s convictions are truly tested when defending a person whose (political/religious etc) position they disagree with.
So how strong are your convictions about mob justice?
Eich did nothing illegal, as did the AM users. Therefore neither deserved to be subjected to mob rule.
Mob rule? Did you even read the blurb?
I’m talking about mob justice. Mob rule happens all the time and is perfectly legal – even our comment voting system is mob rule.
Mob justice, however, is generally illegal. Mob justice is what’s happening with this hack. It’s clearly illegal (both the hack and the disclosing of private information are illegal).
What happened with Eich, however, is completely legal and normal, and happens all the time. It’s employees and customers voicing their concern about a company’s leadership or practices, and voting with their mouths and wallets. Just as Eich was free to be homophobic, his employees and customers were free to call him out on it. Such public pressure happens all the time – just look at, say, BP. In fact, you yourself probably have had bad experiences at a company and then decided to take your business elsewhere and telling your friends about it. That’s what happened to Mozilla, and it’s the only way regular consumers have to make themselves heard.
So no, these things are not the same. Do you really want to equate, say, black people criticising a CEO for donating to the KKK (the equivalent of what Eich did), to criminals hacking a private company and publishing the private information of millions of people?
Edited 2015-08-25 09:21 UTC
Maybe a better phrase would be vigilante justice?
I wouldn’t call the furor surrounding Eich to be mob rule. A public outcry that led to bad publicity and the threat of a boycott. But in the AM case, it is the act of a few individuals who took matters into their own hands, which is vigilantism.
Eich got called out on what he said in public, by his public. If you want to voice your concerns or believes, which should not ever be illegal, you can and should expect a reastion, which isn’t illegal either. You may perceive it as an overreaction of the ones who do have to make the decision wether or not to support the ideas the guy was spreading, but they used legitimate means to do it. Eich actively pursuide a reaction from a lot of people, he got just that, from a lot of people.
The AM users actively sought a service which put discretion first because what they were looking for they could not get in a public way. As despicable as it might be perceived to have such a service, it is irrelevant to what happened. A few guys actively broke the law to blackmail and hurt a lot of people, just because those people had other values they disagreed with. Those people actively pursuide discretion and privacy, they just got robbed of it by a few.
Where are the similarities?
I take your point here, but I think it’s quite different. Eich donated money to a political cause – he publicly associated himself with something that impinged on human rights. Someone who used a private website to break their contract with their spouse has certainly broken trust, but I’d argue that it is a private trust.
Think of it like all the US republican candidates shouting about “traditional marriage”, while on their very untraditional 3rd or 4th marriage – you could choose to use that argument to defend “gay marriage”, but it’s not actually an argument, it’s just pointing out another human’s failing.
Some people supported Eich’s position, some were against – Mozilla needed a leader who didn’t divide opinion, and it was about something quite fundamental in society, i.e. who you can be accepted to have a relationship with – it directly affected millions of people, and indirectly affected many millions more (friends and family of those directly affected)…someone having an affair directly affects 1 person (or more if you’re a mormon), and indrectly affects a handful of others, but only if it is made public.
Think of it like racism…if you hate someone because of the colour of their skin, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s all good…as long as you don’t act out on it by discriminating that group. I don’t like cheese and onion crisps, and I don’t buy them for myself, but if I have friends round, I’ll buy them as well as the obviously superior salt and vinegar. I’ll also not donate $1,000 to a campaign to ban cheese and onion crisps…
Oh no, you don’t get to wrap yourself in this flag.
There is a huge, massive, un-bridgeable gap between what happened at Mozilla and what has happened here.
In the case of Eich his political support for Prop 8 was a matter of public record, and his employees were the ones speaking up and pointing out the conflict between that and the publicly stated policies of Mozilla.
In this case the users of AM were doing something in private and a few people have decided they’re the moral judge, jury and executioner and have simply outed them all.
Do you see the difference yet between a debate based on publicly available information and a instant & virtual lynching of thousands of people?
It is exactly because the much larger public cares that outing those people is so devastating (cheating is considered morally wrong after all), otherwise it would just be a footnote in the newspapers like any other hacking. The hackers clearly committed a crime and did something morally repulsive, but the aftermath is the work of media, lynch mobs and the public in general who think of themselves as moral judges.
Anyway, you both have a point so have an upvote. It could spawn an interesting discussion.
Edited 2015-08-25 12:45 UTC
The law gives you no protection. Hillary Clintion has an email problem, and appears to have committed more crimes than Snowden, will she even be charged?
There is a very strong medical privacy act here, HIPPA, but if your intimate detailed medical records end up on pastebin, no one will be prosecuted.
I don’t know if Google actually deletes anything, or how the treasure trove Windows 10 collects is protected – and Iran has subpoena power too.
Google fought the right to be forgotten.
Googgle’s algorithms have outed several Trans people.
Right now, your most intimate details, messages, etc. are protected by a screen door tied with a string, with a law saying it is illegal to break the string. And that law has no teeth – any leads on Sony?
What is AM’s privacy policy or EULA? – it probably has a clause that they aren’t responsible, you must arbitrate -no judge or jury, no liability, use at your own risk.
The model is based on trust. RSA was hacked. I doubt AM had a 10th of the security.
One reason we need things like cash and bitcoin is to be anonymous. Anyone using a prepaid debit card with fake name and a burner email is likely unaffected.
The OPM government breach was worse, but that data hasn’t been posted.
And this is the problem with crypto backdoors and tracking as well. Whatever the government can get with a warrant, a hacker can get. Your tracking profile too. They want to be able to surveil you.
You’ve not considered if a spouse discovers AM on a computer and then files for divorce, with a warrant for AMs data.
There are intolerant prople on both sides. The KKK or the GGG in their rainbow sheets that intimidated Eich. We don’t tolerate tolerance. Anyone with differing ideas – even if they themselves are tolerant – must be purged. There was no evidence Eich ever discriminated, only contributed to a campaign many years earlier when there was far less consensus (his side won the initiative). But he is not allowed his thoughts, his opinion.
Is this what we’ve come down to? Polarization. We can’t live and work together, Tolerate each other, respect we might think differently, but still show tolerance and fairness in our actions. Instead LGBTs will refuse to work with or even tolerate Christians and demand purges? Why don’t you expect Christians to reciprocate?
If we are all to be tracked and hounded by intolerant busybodies, we will shatter as a culture.
That is the evil. That there are some people who will go the extra mile on their witch hunt of intolerance – both sides. That neither a contribution to Prop 8, nor adultery can be ignored, tolerated, or forgiven – by complete strangers. We are all screaming “burn the witch!”, only differing on which witch we want to burn.
Actually, you hit a point that’s been annoying me for a while!
Many people think that having a negative opinion about certain groups of people is discrimination and hence wrong. It’s not. Treating those groups of people differently is discrimination (and wrong). One can have a valid negative opinion without acting on it. It’s perfectly possible to dislike people and still treat them like anyone else, it’s called being professional.
Edited 2015-08-25 13:14 UTC
This is complete and utter bullshit, and completely and utterly factually wrong on every possible level.
He is allowed to have whatever thought he wants. He is allowed to have whatever opinion he wants. He is allowed to express whatever free speech he wants.
However, so are Mozilla’s employees and users. They voiced their concerns, and said concerns had consequences. All this happened between PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and PRIVATE ORGANISATIONS. Not a single government intervention took place. This entire saga was the very epitome of freedom – of speech, of individuals, of organisations – working exactly as intended.
What you people don’t understand is that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If I am a politician and it came out I donated to the KKK, I will lose support. People will condemn me for it and ask for my resignation, and they sure as hell won’t re-elect me. According to your twisted, insane logic – this should not be allowed.
The whole Mozilla/Eich saga is the epitome of freedom at work, without any government intervention, and without anything illegal taking place. Eich has not been harmed, he has not been threatened with violence, and the government has not put him in jail.
He only suffered the consequences because his opinions did not align with the ideals of the organisation he was supposed to lead. Imagine a the leader of a charity organisation helping impoverished families in black neighbourhoods being a KKK supporter. Do you think he would not be fired?
The whole Ashley Madison hack has nothing – ABSOLUTELY f–kING NOTHING – to do with people exercising their legal right to free speech and threatening to take their business elsewhere – and the consequences that follow from that.
Edited 2015-08-25 13:19 UTC
You were well on your way to make a point, up untill you started about Christians reciprocating hateful feelings of LGBT people. Maybe you should go back to your history classes to find out who would be reciprocating to whom. (I have never heard of Gays refusing to work with Christians because of their Religion, you might have though it won’t be many).
It really was a bad example that just destroyed your complete argument because it shows a hidden agenda by putting complete nonsens in between semi logic.
Every person has difficulties respecting différences, whether they are trying to be tolerant or just badly refuse to. But tolerating hurtful intolerance really is no point to make.
Edited 2015-08-25 13:44 UTC