Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ashley Madison To Pay $1.6M Settlement Related To Data Breach (pcworld.com)

Posted by msmash on from the guilty-as-charged dept.

The company behind Ashley Madison, the adultery enabling website, has agreed to pay a $1.6 million settlement related to a major data breach last year that exposed account details of 36 million users. From a PCWorld report: Ashley Madison's operator, Toronto-based Ruby, is making the settlement for failing to protect the account information and for creating fake user profiles to lure in prospective customers, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Wednesday. In July 2015, a hacking group called Impact Team managed to steal the account details and then post them online a month later -- potentially damaging the reputation of the customers using the adultery website. The FTC alleges the Ashley Madison site suffered from lax security, allowing hackers to break in several times between Nov. 2014 and June 2015. The service also retained personal information of users who had paid $19 to delete their data from the site, the FTC said.

45 comments

  1. How sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's put aside the morality question around extramarital affairs. The fact is that any woman who would need a site like this to find a hook up would have to be very undesirable, and more likely these women don't exist in the first place. Any woman can find a guy to hook up with without relaxing standards too much.

    Men who use this site have to be incredibly stupid and/or desperate. Crap. I'm not that desirable of a guy myself outside of my six figure income and I've been come onto more than once by women who knew I was married but didn't know my financial situation. If you are visiting a site like AM, you really must be a loser.

    1. Re:How sad by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've been modding you down because I met my wife on Ashley Madison.

    2. Re:How sad by TWX · · Score: 1

      The humblebrag is probably what did it. If one rewrites the second paragraph and omits, "...outside of my six figure income..." then his post is about what he encountered, not about himself.

      As far as the assertions themselves, everyone has their own motivation for what they do. I won't dispute that historically, mediums that cater toward interaction between the sexes tend to be dominated by male subscribers, but that doesn't mean that there aren't women that seek to use such a medium for their own personal reasons. It's not unreasonable to speculate on the married woman that very much needs to avoid being caught in the act of establishing the initial connection that leads to the sexual encounter who figures that everything up to the point of meeting for sex is best done as apparently anonymously as possible. It's not unreasonable to speculate that some women may get a kick out of not knowing who a sexual partner truly is until meeting for the deed. It's even reasonable to assume that some women get their kicks on seeing married men, and presumably a site dedicated to fostering affairs, rather than hookups without respect to possible existing relationships, works for them.

      Either way, discounting the actual nature of the service that the site was providing, their choice to take customers' money to do something and then specifically not do that thing as a policy should earn them really big fines, arguably much bigger than they're even facing.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:How sad by OhPlz · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's not how that site works, you would have met someone else's wife.

    4. Re:How sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe a "whooosh" is in order here.

      Jokes aside, there is the possibility that two married people hooked up using the site, divorced their spouses, and got married.

    5. Re:How sad by PPH · · Score: 1

      you would have met someone else's wife

      Or a pro. But most probably a chatbot.

      It's possible that someone did meet his future wife by posing as a married man. Quite a few women (both married and single) troll for hookups among these guys. Perhaps they figure if he's married once, he'll do it again. Or just that he's good blackmail material. Back in my single days, wearing a wedding ring improved my success rate. But on AM; not going there myself.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:How sad by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I think we can definitively say that his right hand belongs to him and him alone.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:How sad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget my left. I swing both ways. Grindr AND Tinder.

    8. Re:How sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Predictably, the above comment got modded down.

      Probably due to the opening sentence:

      Let's put aside the morality question around extramarital affairs.

      Because there's a certain class of people who have their idea of conduct and have dedicated their lives to imposing it on the rest of us.

      That said, I predict a down mod in 3...2...1...

    9. Re:How sad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I meet other peoples wives on match.com. Have I been doing it all wrong?

    10. Re:How sad by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Don't forget my left. I swing both ways. Grindr AND Tinder.

      Well, everyone's gotta have a hobby, though given your dedication to it, I'm surprised you haven't got friction burns on your "wife" by now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:How sad by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Or a pro. But most probably a chatbot.

      AM has publicly admitted that most of the women on the site are fake. The fine print in their TOS says they can engage their users with artificial profiles for "entertainment purposes". Anyone wasting their time on AM is a fool, which is further demonstrated by the fact that many of them were stupid enough to use their real names and contact info.

    12. Re:How sad by thomn8r · · Score: 1
      Anyone wasting their time on AM is a fool

      What's worse is people actually paid for the privilege of wasting their time on the site...

  2. That's it? 1.6M? by ddtmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4.5 cents per user. I love the line "Today’s settlement closes an important chapter on the company’s past and reinforces our commitment to operating with integrity,"

    1. Re:That's it? 1.6M? by unixisc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'Integrity' is an interesting word for a company whose business model is solely about enabling one's extra-marital tendencies

    2. Re:That's it? 1.6M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4.5 cents per user. I love the line "Today’s settlement closes an important chapter on the company’s past and reinforces our commitment to operating with integrity,"

      Probably more like $20 for each REAL user.

    3. Re:That's it? 1.6M? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      4.5 cents per user.

      Have you deducted the lawyer fees/awards yet? :p

    4. Re:That's it? 1.6M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah; should be $19 * 36m at least.

    5. Re:That's it? 1.6M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And is powered by 'bots to sucker rubes into paying money to them for the shady service...

  3. enabling adultery? by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about fornication for unmarried people, can't they get service?

    1. Re:enabling adultery? by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't such people use more conventional services like match.com, where they'd find other unmarried people that they can hook up w/?

    2. Re:enabling adultery? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't such people use more conventional services like match.com, where they'd find other unmarried people that they can hook up w/?

      Well... the married people on AM are presumably not on the whole picky as to whether they want to hook up with someone married or single. And it's a good indication that both people want something no strings attached.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:enabling adultery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called Tinder.

    4. Re:enabling adultery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Uber

    5. Re:enabling adultery? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      What if they use specs and performance of particular product offered as the main criteria?

  4. A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by bluegutang · · Score: 2

    So the value of each user's information, including the fact that they're considering cheating on their spouse, is just 4.4 cents?

    1. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I bet it doesn't even cover the $19 they were paid to pretend to delete the user's data. Once again, crime pays as long as you have that corporate veil to protect you from being personally responsible for your actions.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real damage here is the negative publicity they received, and the huge hit on the brand. I'm guessing most people will not trust them any longer with their personal data.

    3. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The real damage here is the negative publicity they received, and the huge hit on the brand. I'm guessing most people will not trust them any longer with their personal data.

      I vaguely remember seeing some story after the data breach that claimed they were still signing on new members.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So the value of each user's information, including the fact that they're considering cheating on their spouse, is just 4.4 cents?

      Maybe the value of their information is worth a lot per head, but the fact that they're considering cheating on their spouse is highly negative, and what pulls down their value to less than 5 cents

    5. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Nobody was cheating with anyone they were chatting with bots.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    6. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody was cheating with anyone they were chatting with bots.

      Somehow I don't think that's much comfort to their spouses. Intentions matter.

    7. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they don't read slashdot, and it probably wasn't on the 9 o'clock news.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:A $1.6M settlement for 36M users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was, especially because there were a few minor politicians/celebrities in there. However, it also got the word out, and I imagine most people thought "well, what are the odds they'll get hacked a second time?" or didn't even care and just wanted sex.

  5. Why is a Canadian company paying FTC fines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will Trump fix this problem too?

    1. Re:Why is a Canadian company paying FTC fines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His first executive order will be to scrub his records permanently from their system.

    2. Re:Why is a Canadian company paying FTC fines? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, Ivana and Marla are already public knowledge

  6. Whatever, I just want to kill the damned spammers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I never even used AM, but I got a shitload of attempted blackmail spam after they had their breach.

  7. No women around on A-M as per a /. article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there a Slashdot article mentioning the fact that there was a 1000 to 1 men/woman ratio (at best) on A-M? Not good odds.

  8. what a coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    4.5 cents per user.

    that's exactly what the marriage is worth after the spouse finds out

  9. Re:Whatever, I just want to kill the damned spamme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nobody@nowhere.com? Is that you?

  10. Case against them for fraud ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    If people paid $19 to have their data deleted, but they did not. This case should be answerable by the directors personally; however nothing will happen since few expect honesty or integrity in business these days -- unfortunately.

  11. I keep expecting by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Ashley Madison to be nominated to Trump's cabinet