Slashdot Mirror


Ashley Madison Source Code Shows Evidence They Created Bots To Message Men

An anonymous reader writes: Gizmodo's Annalee Newitz looked through the source code contained in the recent Ashley Madison data dump and found evidence that the company created tens of thousands of bot accounts designed to spur their male users into action by sending them messages. "The code tells the story of a company trying to weave the illusion that women on the site were plentiful and eager." The evidence suggests bots sent over 20 million messages on the website, and chatted with people over 11 million times. The vast majority of fake accounts — 70,529 to 43 — pretended to be female, and the users targeted were almost entirely men. Comments left in the code indicate some of the issues Ashley Madison's engineers had to solve: "randomizing start time so engagers don't all pop up at the same time" and "for every single state that has guest males, we want to have a chat engager." The AI was unsophisticated, though one type of bot would try to convince men to pay and then pass them to a real person.

49 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. How is this legal? by SoCalChris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this legal? Tricking people into paying for accounts by convincing them that someone is trying to message them would be fraud, wouldn't it?

    1. Re:How is this legal? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, before you sign up you have to agree to terms of service, and somewhere hidden deep in the fine print is some incredibly vague sentence like "all interactions between users are purely for entertainment purposes only" which, if necessary in a court of law, they can easily construe to mean that the users agreed to be lied to.

    2. Re:How is this legal? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Actually, sorry that wouldn't be vague enough. It would be probably more something like "all interactions between users and [the website] are for entertainment purposes only."

    3. Re:How is this legal? by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only fruit of the poisonous tree if the police hack it without a warrant. In point of fact, stolen stuff is used as evidence against the theft victim all the time.

      This should result in a very thorough investigation in to AM, including warrants for copies of all source code and backups (and when it turns out the bots have been removed since the hack, that's another charge of destroying evidence). Seem unlikely it will, but it certainly should.

    4. Re:How is this legal? by Sun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At least where I'm at, the law says that a contract unilaterally phrased by one side needs to be interpreted, in a court of law, in the way most detrimental to that side. Under those conditions, the question is not how AM can construe the phrase, but how the plaintiff can construe it.

      Shachar

    5. Re:How is this legal? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative
      You're right. They warn that some parts of their website are for entertainment only. Here are the terms and conditions, and the relevant portion reproduced below:

      Other Aspects of the Ashley Madison Service – For Your Entertainment

      Our Site and our Service gives users the opportunity to explore their fantasies and to interact with others in the Site. However, there is no guarantee you will find a date or partner on our Site or using our Service. Our Site and our Service also is geared to provide you with amusement and entertainment. You agree that some of the features of our Site and our Service are intended to provide entertainment.

      Others Using the Site for Entertainment

      You also understand and agree that there are users and members on the Site that use and subscribe to our Service for purely entertainment purposes. Those users and subscribers are not seeking physical meetings with anyone they meet on the Service, but consider their communications with users and members to be for their amusement.

      You acknowledge and agree that any profiles of users and members, as well as, communications from such persons may not be true, accurate or authentic and may be exaggerated or fantasy. You acknowledge and understand that you may be communicating with such persons and that we are not responsible for such communications.

      Of course, in another section the prohibit you from using bots, and in another section, prohibit you from using fake profile pictures. So the only ones who could be doing these things..............

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:How is this legal? by theNetImp · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no poisonous tree. The police did not perform the search. Since the person who stole the code was un-affilliated with the police it can be used in court as evidence if someone were to spin up a lawsuit.

    7. Re:How is this legal? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      It's legal because none of the husbands trying to cheat on their wives will ever publicly complain, ever, not even now that it has been exposed, bwa ha ha ha.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:How is this legal? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's questionable that these are enforceable, though. EULAs in general are questionable in courts, and in this case there is no doubt that their was intentional deception of the customers. No one would be able to guess that they would have bots talking to them from reading the EULA.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:How is this legal? by Flentil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't expect that to hold up very well with them repeatedly using words like 'subscribers' and 'persons'. I don't think bots would qualify for either definition.

    10. Re:How is this legal? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Funny

      How is this legal? Tricking people into paying for accounts by convincing them that someone is trying to message them would be fraud, wouldn't it?

      I for one am outraged that people who facilitate adultery are anything but honest and above board!

    11. Re:How is this legal? by gutnor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And considering the number of actual woman on the website, most men only used it for fantasy rather than actually cheating. So entertainment is what they were looking for and what they actually got.

    12. Re:How is this legal? by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not, but up to the hack they strictly obeyed to the 11th commandments ("Thou shall not get caught").

      But, how do you want to prove it; you can't use the hacked data ("Fruit of the poisonous tree")...

      "Poison tree" argument also doesn't apply to Canadian law. Courts regularly use "poisoned" evidence here. That said, there's no case because they include this clause in their terms:

      Other Aspects of the Ashley Madison Service – For Your Entertainment

      Our Site and our Service gives users the opportunity to explore their fantasies and to interact with others in the Site. However, there is no guarantee you will find a date or partner on our Site or using our Service. Our Site and our Service also is geared to provide you with amusement and entertainment. You agree that some of the features of our Site and our Service are intended to provide entertainment.

      In Canadian law as long as you disclose that it's for entertainment purposes only you can get away with a lot more. It's how psychic/erotic phone lines and such get around laws that would otherwise make it illegal.

    13. Re:How is this legal? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many people do you think read all of the T&Cs? How many people do you know who have read the Facebook T&Cs, for example (I know two, but I don't know anyone who has both read them and agreed to them)?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:How is this legal? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There have been cases where EULAs that were not presented before the product was purchased were declared grounds for returning the product for a full refund. There is also a huge body of case law on contracts in general. In common law countries, the requirement for a contract to be binding is that a 'meeting of minds' has occurred and it is up to the party wishing to enforce the contract to prove this. Signatures, for example, provide strong evidence (and the backing of case law that they count as evidence), but there is very little statute law defining what makes a contract binding (though some on what makes one non-binding, such as requiring one party to break a law).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:How is this legal? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      maybe so, but I would imagine a lot of single men were on the site as well, looking for easy hookups with those frustrated and lonely housewives.

    16. Re:How is this legal? by CanadianRealist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      to interact with others in the Site

      users and members on the Site

      Emphasis mine in both cases. The use of the phrase "in the site" caught my attention right away. Is that a reference to their bots, who are literally in the site. "On the site" is what I usually hear, and they clearly know that version since they use it elsewhere.

    17. Re:How is this legal? by delt0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How the fuck can people be so gullible... That really sexy girl that just want to give some internet stranger a good time, is ALWAYS ether a bot, a big fat dude or the feds.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    18. Re:How is this legal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would never hold up in a UK court, I'm certain of that. T&Cs don't override a reasonable person's expectations of a service.

      For example, years ago I sent a package overseas. I paid Royal Mail for tracking and insurance. The package was lost and they couldn't tell me what happened to it. They argued that the T&Cs, which were far too long to read standing at the counter in the post office and were not explained to be by their staff, stated that the tracking stops at the UK border and as such so does the insurance. The judge dismissed their argument immediately, because the service is advertised as being tracked and insured. They would have had to clearly advertise that massive gaping hole prominently if they wanted to enforce it.

      I really hope someone does take them to court to get their money back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:How is this legal? by digitig · · Score: 3, Funny

      LOL, talk about these guys being taken for a ride!

      I think the problem is that the guys were not likely to get taken for a ride.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    20. Re:How is this legal? by Dins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's legal because none of the husbands trying to cheat on their wives will ever publicly complain, ever, not even now that it has been exposed, bwa ha ha ha.

      If they had an affair through AM, got caught and divorced because of that, not only might they complain but they would be much more likely to.

      That said, it comes back round to the fact that there were so few actual women on the site that there likely weren't many actual affairs that were arranged.

    21. Re:How is this legal? by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Plus, they could have made a packet shorting the stock.

    22. Re:How is this legal? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Yeah it's almost like they cheated.

    23. Re:How is this legal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many people can actually understand the T&Cs? Interesting video on the subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The guy in the video is an academic who developed software for determining the reading ability needed to understand text. He checked the terms and conditions on many sites and services and found that often a post-graduate (Masters/PhD) level education was required just to understand them, assuming you could be bothered to even read a document longer than Hamlet and take the time to fully appreciate the ramifications of agreeing to it.

      UK courts usually determine clauses that are too complex for a "reasonable person" to understand as void. It's a failure to communicate by the writer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:How is this legal? by CCarrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey My wife Eliza is hot!

      How do you really feel about your wife Eliza is hot?

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    25. Re:How is this legal? by dryeo · · Score: 3

      "Poison tree" argument also doesn't apply to Canadian law. Courts regularly use "poisoned" evidence here. That said, there's no case because they include this clause in their terms:

      Yes and no. Section 24.2 of the Charter states,

      (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

      It depends on a few things, from wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      (1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct (focusing on a review of how society would view the actions of the state), (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused (focusing on a review of how the state's actions affected the accused), and (3) society's interests in the adjudication of the case on its merits (focusing on a review of the importance and reliability of the evidence).

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re:How is this legal? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      A UK court will ignore that. Such clauses are unenforceable in the UK, they can't remove your right to use your local small claims court.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:How is this legal? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      On their home page, it says very clearly " 100% Like-minded People." Since AM hired people to talk to men and lead them on, this is definitely not true lol. TBH I think there is a strong case against AM here. I am interested in seeing how a court would rule on the bot issue, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. SO? by jafac · · Score: 3, Informative

    What online game community doesn't have NPC's?

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:SO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are you talking about? We have the Cows guy, the Golden Girls guy, the lone remaining GNAA troll, APK, roman_mir, ... the list is endless!

  3. Stop the presses! by bob_super · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Men looking to get laid got lied to and exploited.
    News at 11.

    1. Re:Stop the presses! by bob_super · · Score: 2

      What's the AM ratio? 1000 to 1 or maybe worse. >20M guys is a decent sample size for the "claiming to be attached looking to cheat" demographic. Women didn't fall as easily for it, despite their access being free!

      I'm really starting to wonder HOW that conservative hypocrite actually managed to get in so much trouble, when the odds were so crazy low.

  4. Not at all surprised by kheldan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'Fraud' in one form or another (in the legal sense or otherwise) is rampant in all online dating. The fact of the matter is, any sort of 'dating' service is always going have an overabundance of male clients.

    I wouldn't at all be surprised if, in the final analysis, they discover that the so-called 'data breach' was perpetrated by the owners of Ashley Madison themselves, and that it was always their plan to blackmail their clientele.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  5. Turing Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would be amusing if the first bot to pass a turing test is from a dating website rather than a university.

    1. Re:Turing Test by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      It tricks you by making you so horny you don't care if it's real or fake anymore.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  6. Common practice in the "adult" biz. by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Porn/cam/sexchat sites regularly do this too, and probably pretty much 100% of the rest of the adult on-line hook-up/dating sites as well. Sorry guys, melonsacidhoney69 isn't real. Neither is Pro Wrestling. Sorry.

  7. The bots are real and will message anything by Sarusa · · Score: 5, Informative

    KFI morning host Bill Handel created an Ashley Madison account:

            handle: smallpenis640
            weight: 220
            height: 4'4"
            picture: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

    He had 3 interested 'women' messaging him in under an hour. And of course you have to pay to message back. This is where most of their money comes from.

    Not sure what happened after that, but yeah, AM, all those 'real women' that 'really' use your site.

    1. Re:The bots are real and will message anything by Translation+Error · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'm amazed that smallpenis 1 through 639 were taken.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  8. exhibit A: OK Cupid's famous essay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As OK Cupid pointed out, you should never pay for ANY online dating., The economic model is against you. http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating.html

    Soon after publishing that famous essay the site was bought by a paid for dating site: it remains free, but had to take that essay down (this is a cached version)

    I met my wife on OK Cupid, and her anecdotal experience confirms that paid for sites are the pits. On paid for sites she was always being hassled by obnoxious men, but free sites (POF, OKC) are much quicker to delete bad accounts. Dating sites get most of their money from desperate men paying large amounts every month. It's easy to keep them coming via fake female accounts. Even large "reputable" companies do it, and have been caught out on TV shows. Heck you can check it yourself: sign up for a paid for dating site, put the photos into Google image search, and see how long it takes before you get a fake. But sexual desperation is such that men will still go there,

    1. Re:exhibit A: OK Cupid's famous essay by Pax681 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heck you can check it yourself: sign up for a paid for dating site, put the photos into Google image search, and see how long it takes before you get a fake. But sexual desperation is such that men will still go there,

      I'll do you even one better.. TINEYE plugin ... just right click and search the image on tineye.. saves a lot of hassle for many reasons.. dating only being one of them

    2. Re:exhibit A: OK Cupid's famous essay by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The site that bought them, match.com, feels horribly scammy as well.

      I've tried four dating websites - two paid, two free.

      Paid :

      * match.com - vast majority of female profiles dead (filter by last login date and the pool dries up immensely), telltale signs that many of the profiles are bots

      I got dates from match, but they weren't really good matches

      * elitesingles - just not enough members to justify using it, it's chosen "exclusivity" image works against it

      Unpaid :

      * plenty of fish - I got dates but it seems the majority of people on here are looking for hookups, not relationships

      * OKCupid - the only one I recommend. I gave them money, voluntarily, because I liked their business model. I hope being owned by match.com hasn't messed with that.

      I also don't know if it's a cultural thing - match.com mostly had what I'd think of as normal average people (the kind of people I met speed dating), OKCupid was either much better at matching me with people of similar temperament (nerdy girls, basically), or just attracts that kind of crowd.

      Met a very lovely woman on OKC and we've been dating for nigh on 18 months now and very much in love. It took a lot of disheartening persistence and slogging though - online dating concentrates the normal feelings of social rejection into a kind of burning vitriol that eats at the soul. But when you have a personality type that's less than 1% of the population it's the smart move - there was just no way I was going to meet enough women to find someone compatible (statistically speaking) in my existing social network.

  9. What would be really nice... by m.alessandrini · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is if the hackers behind this were a group of women.

  10. What the fuck dude?! by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    I have all the qualities such women love:

    I'm slightly out of shape, I've slightly overweight, I'm bald, middle-aged, married and desperate to get laid but cannot afford a prostitute.

    Are you seriously saying that the 22 year old professional playboy model, Courtney from L.A. isn't real??

    ...but she sent me pictures!

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  11. Horn-E-Tron by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the 90's I built a kind of porn version of Eliza, but I never went through with the plans to put it live, perhaps out of shame.

    I wasn't going to claim they were real women, just put it on the web and sell ad space or clicks. Customers can't sue me if they didn't pay anything

    The women were implied to be "foreign" via hazy decorative images, to explain their limited grasp of English. I planned to study the dialogs with customers and improve it over time, or at least mix things up to seem more organic.

    I had "rule" tables with probabilities, not unlike a Markov chain, and a kind of crude conceptual model of the human body to prevent unrealistic combinations. "Silly boy, my [x] cannot reach my [y]. I'm not that rubber dummy you like so much. I taste better." I also had a phrase tracker to prevent excessive duplication. (Maybe I should've sold it to the Slashdot Dupe Story Inspection Department :-)

  12. Re:"Comments left in the code ..." by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

    As a freelance programmer I'm supposed to turn down a paying gig because it exploits adulterers? I'm going with gray area area on that one, which means I will certainly cash that check. Ask me to help with your spambot though and I will say no thank you, sir.

  13. Re:open marriage by m.alessandrini · · Score: 2

    it doesn't work for me

    It doesn't work for men! We are waaaay more disadvantaged in the game of finding casual partners. Blame it on the economic law of supply and demand, perhaps.

  14. So, here's how it worked by Spugglefink · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, about three years ago I was miserable in my marriage. All my close friends advised me to leave my wife, but none of them could offer me a place to crash until I could get on my own feet. I was in an acute emotional crisis that needed an immediate remedy, and my only choice was to find a way to suck it up and work through the pain and deal with it. No woman has to go through this. If a woman is having an acute emotional crisis due to a bad marriage, the world opens its doors to her. Their friends will take them in, they have shelters, they have all kinds of free community resources. Men have precisely dick for options. If your parents are dead, you're fucked, and oh well. No one cares. Deal with it.

    So while I was sucking it up and trying to pull together enough money to establish a new household from scratch, I decided to try making my interim time less miserable by having an affair. Millions of men do it every year. Why hell, there are even ads everywhere encouraging it! "Life is short! Have an affair!" That was how I came to know Ashley Madison.

    I created a profile there, and it wasn't long before I got a message from a girl. She lived really far away, and nothing in her profile indicated she was in any way looking for me. I tried to open it anyway, and in order to do so, I had to go purchase credits. I intended to make the smallest possible purchase, which was something like $60, but somewhere between clicking on the "economy package" and clicking on the "I approve" button, they got me turned around, and when the invoice appeared, I had just spent something on the order of $370! I never have figured out how they pulled that off, but I'm sure if I could go back and look at the fine print, they had their asses covered.

    The "girl" messaged me again, and that was when I figured out I had spent $370 to talk to a fucking bot. All the "girls" on there were bots, except the one human who did contact me. By that point, I had given up on meeting anyone through the site, but I still had like 900 credits left, so I kept the account open with a blank profile. The real chick who messaged me sent a bunch of free amateur porn to a blank profile with no personal info and no picture. She was looking for ANYBODY in the area desperate enough to have sex with her, and it was immediately obvious why she was so desperate. I have a buddy whose standard in a sex partner is that it has to be a living mammal, so I hooked them up. She got laid, and I, having learned my lesson, deleted my account and dumped the remaining credits in the trash. They were worthless anyway.

  15. Brazilian T&C proves that by dafradu · · Score: 2

    The terms and conditions for brazilian users tell exactly this, more specific the section 5 that in english is 195 words long, but in portuguese is 764 words long. And thats not just because of the translation, this part goes into more details on what they do.

    It says:

    "In order to allow guests in our site to experience the kind of communication they expect as members, we may create profiles that may interact with them.

    The purpose of us creating these profiles is to provide entertainment for our guests, to allow guests users to explore our services and to promote greater participation in our services. The messages sent are computer generated. The messages from the profiles we create try to simulate communications so you can also become a member, pushing you into participating in more conversations and to raise interaction between friends.

    You acknowledge and agree that some profiles published in the site, with whom you may communicate as a guest, may be fictitious. The purpose of the creation of these profiles is to provide our invited users with entertainment."

    So, at least to non paying users its clear that a lot of the females users and their messages are computer generated.

    More here in Portuguese: http://gizmodo.uol.com.br/term...

  16. Re:match.com by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly true. Match.com seemed to be legit 10+ years ago, but these days it's a total scam. I signed up for an account there recently (since I'm back in the market and all....), since I wasn't getting far on OKCupid, thinking I'd try a different site to see if there was a different crowd of women there. It completely reeked of being a scam; I never did give them any money, thankfully, but the signs were pretty obvious. First, while it was possible to fill out your profile for free and look at others', so many things required a paid account: receiving mail, seeing who "liked" you, etc. And second, just how many "likes" and emails I received, even though I hadn't mailed anyone else. For a month or two after signing up, I was barraged with emails saying I had received personal messages from women, that tons of women had "liked" me, etc. Yeah, bullshit. I've been on OKC more than long enough to know that men almost never receive unsolicited messages from women (and when they do, those women usually aren't too desirable, sorry to say). There's no way I'm getting tons of emails from beautiful women after sticking up a profile and a couple of photos and doing little else. Anyway, I kept getting emails from match.com for 2-3 months after this, constantly trying to get me to come back, pay money to read these supposed messages, etc., but it finally stopped.

    As far as I can tell, most of these dating sites these days are scams. OKCupid seems to be completely legit; I haven't seen anything that reeks of fakery there, however the male:female ratio is of course poor as you'd expect and women who are at all desirable get bombarded with messages from men. From what I've read, eHarmony seems to be legit, but it's also completely geared towards conservative Christians so if you're not one of those, then don't bother. AFAICT, Tinder is completely legit too, but it's not a site at all, really more of a hookup app and because of its lack of detailed profiles, doesn't facilitate finding compatible partners.