Slashdot Mirror


Hackers Publish Cheating Site's Stolen Data

pdclarry notes that many news outlets are reporting that 9.7 GB of data stolen from cheating website AshleyMadison.com has been published online. "The dump contains files with titles including 'aminno_member_dump.gz,' 'aminno_member_email.dump.gz,' 'CreditCardTransactions7z,' and 'member_details.dump.gz,' an indication that the download could contain highly personal details." Brian Krebs questioned the way this has been reported without confirmation, but added that he's been contacted by several people who found their own accurate details within the data dump. Many of the reports note this detail: "Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals."

50 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. ... using the name and e-mail address of other ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Usually all sites will send a confirmation email and only enable the account if a confirmation link or code from that email is used.

    So i guess it's a bit hard to "create an account using the ... e-mail address of other individuals"

  2. Yeah, right. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals.

    ...And supplying other people's credit card details as well, no doubt.

    FWIW, I believe that people's sex lives are their own business, married or not. But I find it difficult to drum up any sympathy for marrieds who are foolish enough to go looking for something on the side via a big flashy commercial website dedicated to that purpose.

    Internet privacy was over at least a decade ago. There's been plenty of time for you to figure this out.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    1. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's something they don't care about that gets hacked.

      But I guess these people "deserved" it because they didn't adequately protect their identities...or something.

      Thugs are thugs whether they are stabbing you for your wallet or stealing your personal information. A swift death is the best option for them.

    2. Re:Yeah, right. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your take on that comment was that he was turning a blind eye? To me it seemed like a lament, that privacy is dead. Long live privacy.

    3. Re:Yeah, right. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've always assumed that GMail isn't really private, either.

      For most of the last 25 years, I've followed a little rule I learned in my radio days: "Don't say it on the air if you don't want to read about it in the paper." It's yet to be proven wrong.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Yeah, right. by readin · · Score: 2

      Funny how Slashdot's fierce Fighters for Privacy turn a blind eye when it's victims have done one of the cruelest and most inhumane things one person can do to another.

      FTFY

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    5. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > just full of fake women anyways

      One report I read said only 4% of the profiles were from women. I have three good friends that are male that each spent hundreds of hours on that site without ever meeting anyone. It wasn't any better than any other dating site I've seen, and considering I've done several marketing studies on them and worked for one, I know. All of these sites have very few actual women and lots of desperate men. Very, very few of the men ever even get a real response. It's sad how my generation of women just aren't interested in men. I'm not, but it seems like more should be.

    6. Re:Yeah, right. by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, please. Cheating is bad, but "one of the cruelest and most inhumane things one person can do to another" is at risk of breaking my hyperboleometer. Discounting things like giving your partner a disease, which is a risk that increases when cheating but is its own separate problem, the heartbreak from cheating is nothing compared to the enduring pain from the death of a loved one, or the trauma of violent rape, or the horror of the battlefield, or even the crippling injuries one can get from a car crash. Cheating is cruelty and betrayal, but at the end of the day it's not likely to ruin your whole life, much less end it.

      Besides, humans aren't really wired very well for monogamy. I mean, some people find that their completely natural state, sure, but most of the way we view the topic is due to societal expectation. Throughout history, the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems, there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels, and various forms of consensual non-monogamy have been practiced more-or-less in secret for centuries even in "modern" culture. If you think you can truly be your partner's everything, the only one they'll ever need to provide everything they desire, then (statistically speaking) you're delusional. I'm not saying that justifies lying and cheating any more than the DMCA and eternal copyrights justify pirating music, but it does mean you shouldn't be surprised when it happens, and that you're better off changing the rules and saving everybody - yourself included - the anguish.

      Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    7. Re:Yeah, right. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see marriage as a partnership between two people. Each gets a lot out of the marriage - stability, a family, a home, security, companionship etc. So refraining from cheating on your partner is just one of the sacrifices you have to make in exchange for that. Sure, you can agree not to be exclusive with each other and maintain the marriage, but going behind your partner's back when you know it will hurt them is not right.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the heartbreak from cheating is nothing compared to the enduring pain from the death of a loved one

      This is one of those generalisations that betrays a close to zero understanding of human emotion. Cheating and unexpected death are both often experienced in similar ways as losses: you had a strong bond with someone that was very important to you, and now suddenly you don't. The loved one has gone, and it's not relevant whether they've gone to the guy/gal the next town over, or six feet under.

      the powerful have had mistresses or consorts or even kept harems

      They've also waged brutal offensive wars and raped and pillaged. "The powerful" tends to be a fairly vicious standard to look up to - fortunately, most people don't.

      there have been entire societies that practiced polygamy at all levels

      Polygamy is not about cheating. There is nothing dishonest in everyone agreeing to a particular arrangement, whatever it is. In confounding two separate arguments, you're making polygamy look bad, even when you seem to want to make it look good.

      If you think you can truly be your partner's everything, the only one they'll ever need to provide everything they desire, then (statistically speaking) you're delusional.

      This is a ridiculous strawman, and you know it.

      Cheating may feel inhumane, but it is very, very human.

      This statement is vacuous. What does "human" mean here - that it's something humans can and sometimes do do? Then murder is "very, very human". It's certainly not inevitable for even a small minority to cheat. You don't want to be faithful to Bob? Go tell Bob!

    9. Re:Yeah, right. by Rei · · Score: 2

      Indeed, while it's interesting to note that while polygamy has been moderately common at times and in some societies throughout human history, polyandry is fairly rare, and true mixed polyamory very rare. And most cases of polygamy, there was no expectation that the wives would physically love each other, only that they'd get along and try not to be jealous of each other getting attention from their husband.

      Interestingly, the views toward children vary significantly between polygamy and polyandry. One of the more common arrangements is associated with a view that a man having sex is just a "trigger" for a woman to conceive, that the child is simply part of her line and has nothing to do with him (the opposite to the view that a woman contributes nothing to a child but the growth environment for a man's seed). In such arrangements, men still do often assist in raising children, but usually the children of their sisters or other close relatives. Another of the more common arrangements is for a woman to share multiple brothers in a family; they are all effectively seen as equal "fathers" to the children and help raise them. Both of these arrangements are easy to explain genetically - in all cases, the men are raising children who carry genes similar to theirs, whether they're literally the father or not.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    10. Re:Yeah, right. by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting for the data mine on specific famous persons and political figures to be published with quite some interest... wonder if anyone is going to be dropping out of the presidential race over it...

      I'm thinking more likely Canadian politics is going to be rocked... 1 in 5 people in Ottawa (Canada's capitol) were supposedly members... That's a good chance that a fair number of people seeking re-election right now are going to show up in that database.

    11. Re:Yeah, right. by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why this "marry who you love" narrative is so dangerous. Should you marry without love, probably not after all its going to be hard to do the right things in more trying times if you are not committed to the cause of being with your spouse. That said love is not enough.

      Marriage should deliver on those things you mention, - stability, a family, a home, security, companionship etc. It should be advantageous for both parties. To that end the partnership is a contract. Many of the benefits flow direct from the belief the other person will honor their commitments.

      If society allows marriages to be entered into or exited from lightly the benefits get watered down. So to say "going behind your partner's back when you know it will hurt them is not right" is a understatement. Not only are dealing great harm to that person by depriving them of something they have potentially made an enormous investment in when you have been married along time, its even bigger than the two of you (or three of you as the case may be). It harming society as whole.

      Honestly no-fault divorce should have never been a thing, and society should look down on adultery. Its really better for all of us. We need more shame and more shaming not less. If you don't want to commit don't get married its that simple.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Yeah, right. by readin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, please. Cheating is bad, but "one of the cruelest and most inhumane things one person can do to another" is at risk of breaking my hyperboleometer.

      Let's see you build your life around a commitment and the other person breaks it. From the biological standpoint of a man you forgo all other chances to reproduce on the belief that you're partner will have your child and then you spend a huge portion of your life caring for that child and earning money to support that child. Then you find out it's not your child. You've been tricked into spending your whole existence serving the interests of another man. If you believe the theory of evolution you understand that you have been murdered for eternity.

      There are reasons men get jealous and why in most successful societies female infidelity incurs severe punishments, and why rape should also incur severe penalties.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    13. Re:Yeah, right. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Email is a plaintext protocol where, by definition, at least two copies exist of every email. Why in the world would anyone expect email to remain private, with or without GMail?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. As a wise man once said by Distan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Information wants to be free".

    The idea that AshleyMadison (or any other entity) would keep registration information private forever was laughable. My rule of thumb is that if I don't want what I do to be published all over the internet, then don't do it.

    1. Re:As a wise man once said by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Information doesn't want anything. It's inanimate.

      I'm guessing you don't seek any medical attention or do any kind of banking as that kind of information is also stored in computers now. Either you have no problem with your medical or financial records being open for all to see, or outside of the occasional /. post, you encase your devices in tinfoil and retreat to a mountain cave. Or the third, more likely option, you' just haven't thought what you're saying all the way through.

    2. Re:As a wise man once said by tezbobobo · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right. Data hates when you give it anthropomorphic qualities. Also, when you take things too literally.

    3. Re:As a wise man once said by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Information wants to be free" isn't meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for the fact that it is very hard to restrict access to information once a large enough number of people have already have access to it. It only takes one person to leak it, and the odds that no one will leak it goes to nearly 0 pretty quickly.

      So yeah, don't create or share any information with anyone unnecessarily if you don't want it leaked. The morality of violating someone's privacy is irrelevant, to the reality of the difficulty of restricting access to information.

      And yes, if I actually cared about keeping my medical information secret more than I cared about getting medical treatment, then I wouldn't get the medical treatment. Luckily, no one gives a shit about my medical records. Medical record are like genitals, everyone's got them. The same goes with financial records.

  4. That's Funny... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just felt a strange disturbance in The Force, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:That's Funny... by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just felt a strange disturbance in Di Vorce, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!

      FTFY

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  5. Re:Fake List of Cheaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    False:

    Update, 11:52 p.m. ET: I’ve now spoken with three vouched sources who all have reported finding their information and last four digits of their credit card numbers in the leaked database. Also, it occurs to me that it’s been almost exactly 30 days since the original hack. Finally, all of the accounts created at Bugmenot.com for Ashleymadison.com prior to the original breach appear to be in the leaked data set as well. I’m sure there are millions of AshleyMadison users who wish it weren’t so, but there is every indication this dump is the real deal.

  6. In other news by Korbeau · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ashley Madison rebrands itself as "Cheating Liar" dot com, reality show on the way.

  7. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Except AM specifically did NOT so as to help avoid leaving a trail.

    One of my friends is on this list because I created his account for him as a prank.

  8. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by x0ra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a prank, it's identity theft, either a felony or a misdemeanor.

  9. Give me the time to download.... by x0ra · · Score: 2

    I have an account on AM with a phony identity, though, I never gave them any CC information. Let me finish to download the leak and I'll check if I'm in the leak :-)

    1. Re:Give me the time to download.... by x0ra · · Score: 2

      I found a torrent on TPB, filenames seems to match the screenshot you can find on various website.

    2. Re:Give me the time to download.... by x0ra · · Score: 5, Informative

      the database is legit, my phony ID is it.

  10. Re:More social decay. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ?

    Who said it does? Nobody says it has to be your norm. You don't have to get married, lots of people don't. You certainly don't have to stay married, again lost of people don't.

    There is nothing particularly immoral about having multiple partners over your life. The immorality is the deception and betrayal of trust. If your going to bang strangers from the internet fine... tell your partner(s) that's what your going to be doing. If they're cool with that great. If they're not, you can leave each other and find a partner(s) that will accept it.

    But sneaking around behind their back(s), lying to them, and violating their trust? What's your "moral" argument for doing that?

  11. Sanctimonius pricks by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From Ashley Madison's official email on the hack:

    It is an illegal action against the individual members of AshleyMadison.com, as well as any freethinking people who choose to engage in fully lawful online activities. The criminal, or criminals, involved in this act have appointed themselves as the moral judge, juror, and executioner, seeing fit to impose a personal notion of virtue on all of society. We will not sit idly by and allow these thieves to force their personal ideology on citizens around the world.

    Anyone detect a massive case of projection here? "Freethinking people"? As in, people who think freely and disagree with Ashley Madison's position? Why is it always "freethinkers" are on the despicable side of things? You'd think that actual free thinking would mean that you were free to think whatever you wanted instead of being required to arrive at a pre-arranged conclusion - one that Ashley Madison arrived at. "Forcing their ideology"? WTF is that all about? Sounds to me like they can't handle the fact that the world is a big place and there might be people out there who disagree with them. Shocking, eh?

    Sanctimonious: making a show of being morally superior to other people.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Sanctimonius pricks by garyok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parent fails English interpretation. The first sentence groups Ashley Madison members with other freethinkers as the subjects of illegal action. Freethinkers aren't the perpetrators, they're another class of victim roped in by the AM crowd to make out that hacking a cheaters website was just gosh-darned un-American.

      Of course, the hackers aren't doing this out a sense of morality. Quite the opposite in fact - they just want to stir shit up and cause havoc.

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
  12. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    In what way is this a prank if your "friend" doesn't ever get notified he even has an account there?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  13. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Funny

    well the second part of the prank was obviously to hack and publish the user database.

    a pretty elaborate prank I must say, I salute!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  14. Re:More social decay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to mention the possibility of passing STDs to your current partner.

  15. Re:More social decay. by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how long it's going to take before polyamory and related "ethical non-monogamy" concepts become as accepted in society as, say, anal hetero sex or lesbian sex (neither of which are universally accepted, but at least they aren't seen as completely bizarre anymore). The ideas aren't new; swinging/wife-swapping (at least in semi-secret) goes back at least a hundred years, there have been multi-partner communes since decades ago, Heinlein wrote of multi-partner families as a social norm in a number of his books... but it's only relatively recently that social norms have come to accept the concept, and it's still viewed askance by many even in those parts of the west coast where it's most common.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  16. Get what they deserve by Barny · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cheaters really should just suck it up. I mean, yeah it is their own stupid fault in cheating.

    Next lets go for the bot boxers, their servers should get hacked next, bring down all forms of gaming cheating!

    Wait, what do you mean this has nothing to do with computer games? Da fuq?

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  17. Re:More social decay. by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, lies to strangers and casual acquaintances are a different thing than lies to someone who is supposed to be able to have implicit trust in you. I'm not talking about small lies like "I'm on my way right now" when you'd totally forgotten something, but the big important ones like "I'm swear not fucking the babysitter." It's a sheer betrayal on a personal level - it causes emotional pain and suffering, and is of the type that such relationships almost never recover from.

  18. Re: More social decay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anal sex is old school ans was accepted in lesser civilisations long ago as a mean to get on with the business without having to worry abou babies since they did not have anything to wrap their dicks into. Also it could be performed to keep the girl as a virgin.

  19. Re:More social decay. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The average American of course commits 0 felonies a day, but by repeating that lie you're at least providing evidence for the lying part.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  20. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He's taking the fall for his buddy. Friends don't come much better than that.

  21. Re:More social decay. by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    I find a weird assumption of many of the polyamory folk that most everyone would be polyamorous if not for "societal mores keeping them repressed". Don't get me wrong, I think greater acceptance of polyamorous folk is a good thing, and there probably are some polyamorous people in the closet for some reason or another. But it's simply not true that most people would be polyamorous if "given the chance", as a lot of polyamorous people think, any more than most people would be gay if "given the chance" or whatnot.

    Look at human societies throughout history, and not just Judeo-Christian ones. How common is polyamory? I'm not talking about cheating, or leaving one's spouse and finding another, or anything of that nature - I'm talking a group of people who live together, love each other, and all F* together as desired. The reality is, it's been extremely rare. Many societies have normalized "playing the field" - having sex for fun without feelings getting involved - while others frown upon it. But that's not the same as polyamory, which implies a love and bonding relationship between multiple partners.

    When feelings get involved, poly situations can get very complicated. "Why is he favoring her???" "Is she no longer interested in me???" "He keeps wanting to spend time with this new girl but I can't stand her". Etc. Don't get me wrong, some people do pull it off - and kudos to them. But let's not pretend that it's for everyone, or even the majority.

    I live in a country (Iceland) where there's very little judgement about people for having sex or who they sleep with, in comparison to the US. It's pretty much just expected that if you're an adult, you're F*ing someone, at least one person, possibly multiple, of whatever gender. When our previous prime minister's party was elected, the fact that she's a lesbian was such a big deal that when a call went out for rat's asses, nobody gave one. When she was in office, it only came up in the context of "X country is causing inconveniences for Iceland because they don't like the fact that our PM is gay". Same-sex marriage passed parliament without a single vote in opposition. Reykjavík Pride is one of our country's largest annual festivals, with as much as a third of the population attending. The concept of "dating" without having sex is pretty much an alien concept here. When a couple has been together for a long time, their families generally don't start asking "when are you two going to get married", rather "when are you two going to have kids?" The typical order is meet->sex->get to know each other while having more sex->start dating->kids->optional marriage if you feel like it.

    But people from overseas hear this and they misinterpret it, applying their own stereotypes about "how the world would be without holdups about sex" to Iceland. So for example, we get tourists (mainly guys) who come over here and think that this means that any girl he starts talking to in a bar is going to want to F* him. It's really annoying - they don't get the connection that "not being ashamed of sex" doesn't mean "interested in F*ing anyone who says hi". Likewise, polyamory isn't particularly common here. People sleep around aplenty, but if they start getting feelings toward someone, it usually stays toward one person. If things change, the result is usually the same sort of "cheating and/or breakup" situation that you're used to in the states. And people cheating on their spouse - aka, deceiving them - is still very frowned upon, because deceiving a person is a scummy activity no matter what country you're from. There's no shame in divorce here, but cheaters are still rightly seen as scumbags.

    Regardless of where you're from: Either be open and honest with the person you're with, or accept that you're a total douchebag.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  22. Re:More social decay. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sadly, this kind of argument is beyond the capacity of most slashdotters.

    Oh piss off. The average intelligence of the /. readers and posting community is not in doubt, especially in comparison to more mainstream discussion forums. Contrary to popular opinion, many nerds are the man or woman of their own family, usually one made with a completely normal game of hide-the-sausage.

    In my experience - and despite the 'Aspie' stereotype - nerds are keenly aware of other people's feelings and I often find they hold their own behaviour to a higher standard than most.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  23. Re:... using the name and e-mail address of other by McGruber · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Arstechnica reports:

    For what it's worth, more than 15,000 of the e-mail addresses are hosted by US government and military servers using the .gov and .mil top-level domains.

    I wonder how many federal employees will be losing security clearances as a result of this?

  24. Re:More social decay. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    It will require changes in the law, because the current system is set up for two person relationships. Adapting to homosexual relationships was relatively easy, and often included recognition of non-married couples as well. In most of Europe if you live with someone for a long time, have kids together and generally act like you are married then when you break up the courts will treat it more or less like a divorce.

    Dealing with polygamy is more tricky. For example, infidelity is grounds for divorce, but without detailed documentation cheaters will be claiming that they were in a polygamous relationship and that their partner is now just looking for an excuse to take half their stuff. Currently courts are unlikely to recognize polygamous pre-nups and the like...

    What I'm getting at is gay people could just live together as if married and the law had little to say about it, but it's going to be harder for polygamous groups because the law actually makes what they want to do difficult.

    One thing is for sure, lawyers will be making plenty of money.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  25. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by Imrik · · Score: 2

    Using someone else's email for it pretty much shoots down the argument that it was a pseudonym.

  26. Re:More social decay. by houghi · · Score: 2

    I assume that ReykjavÃk Pride is the Gay Pride Parade where people celebrate that they like people of the same gender.
    How much larger is it compare to the Hetero Pride Parade, where people celebrate their fondness of the opposite gender?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  27. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of othe by DroolTwist · · Score: 2

    how many people are going to be on those lists who never signed up for the site

    All of them.

  28. Re: ... using the name and e-mail address of other by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

    No, it's a prank. Now that this hack has happened it's also hilarious. Don't be an old stick in the mud.

  29. Yeah, that's what I tried to explain to my wife by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Funny

    people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals

    See honey, even Slashdot acknowledges it! It was a hack. It could have been anyone using my email and credit card. They probably just got lucky on the penis length thing.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  30. Re:... using the name and e-mail address of other by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 4, Funny

    my favourite reaction to this incident is:
    "2 years of paying $19 a month... Now I'm finally getting f**ked"