[antillean]

> "Either way, debate about polygamy vs. monogamy in this case-scenario is completely irrelevant. Someone was hacked, privacy was violated (it doesn't matter what privacy) and that is the end of that. There's no reason to attach another argument to the discussion because the hack was an outright violation in the first place."

Is it that simple? Would the outright violation of a hack be the end of the story if we were talking about something that we all agree is wrong and/or illegal? What if it was a hack on a website that connected child pornographers, or cocaine dealers, or human traffickers, or arms dealers, or planet-destroyers, or abortionists, or super-rich exploitative CEOs?

EDIT: That list started off in my head as stuff that I thought there might be agreement on, but I couldn't think of anything beyond child pornographers, so it turned into stuff that significant groups feel very strongly about but on which there is no general agreement. Hopefully both sets of stuff make my point.

[fweespeech]

> Is it that simple?

Yes. The legal system is responsible for bringing criminals to justice. The system maybe imperfect but its better than vigilantes with a deeply held, righteous cause who honestly believe their targets to be evil. Fanatics of all stripes see themselves in that light and that kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. In truth, it should only be used in the event a blood revolution is the only option available to the citizenry.

[PhasmaFelis]

If we say that it is never acceptable for vigilantes to release illegally-obtained information, then shouldn't we also be decrying Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning? Their dumps certainly contained unpleasant stuff that could be traced back to individuals. There's got to be a line somewhere, even if it's not at Ashley Madison specifically.

[saiya-jin]

the sad thing is, both of you are right, and no matter what I do, I cannot decide who is "more right". strange times indeed :)

[fweespeech]

You'll notice I left out an exception for revolution / rebelling against the government. If you get to the point you need vigilantes to fight the government, well, yeah.

In the context of a private company, yes, its never acceptable.

[tbrownaw]

Pictures don't hurt anyone (except sometimes in the libel/slander sense).

But don't stolen credit cards get traded online? Or other impersonation / "identity theft" information? Maybe a marketplace for one of those would be a good example.

.

The trick is probably making sure that "something that we all agree is wrong" matches with things that actually harm people who didn't freely agree to it. Things like murder, coercion, kidnapping, breach of contract, ...

[Lawtonfogle]

Infidelity harms some, unless we aren't counting emotional harm.

[the_af]

Infidelity is certainly harmful to someone (emotional harm is a real thing, not to be discounted) but so is exposing people's private lives and peccadilloes. Infidelity is something that should be resolved in private by the parties involved.

Whatever you do, someone will find it offensive or harmful to them, for some definition of "harmful" -- even the way you dress, or the music you listen to, or the books you read, or who you have sex with. This isn't a good enough reason to humiliate you in public.

I'd say you cannot compare infidelity with things like murder, extortion, or someone in public office engaging in corruption or grossly misleading the public. Those things do need exposing.

[littletimmy]

Why? Surely their commitment was public, if the person in question was married. If the state sanctions a contract, in this case marriage, and one party does something to offend that contract, then why not make it public?

[the_af]

Infidelity can be just as serious, morally speaking, if the person in question is not married but in a long-term monogamous relationship. Is this simply a question about the law? I thought people were arguing about moral outrage.

In any case, not every breach of contract must be made public for all to see and humiliate you.

[Lawtonfogle]

Considering infidelity can lead to non-consensualy exposing people to STDs and possibly lead to rape (depending upon how you define consent).

[FireBeyond]

No. Rape is not "I wouldn't have had sex with that person if I was better informed".

Where does that end? "He has an STD"? "He is unfaithful"? "He cheats at poker"? "He is a bad father"? "If I'd known that, I wouldn't have had sex, therefore it wasn't consensual".

(edited for grammar)

[Lawtonfogle]

>No. Rape is not "I wouldn't have had sex with that person if I was better informed".

I never said it was. I said that under some definitions that people use it is. Especially when it involves disclosing use of birth control (all cases I know of involve men lying, as that increases the biological risk of the woman, while the woman lying doesn't make the man more likely to get pregnant) and when it involves lying about having STDs.

I'm not saying which definition is right, only pointing out that some people (and I believe some legal systems) do use such definitions (and as such this influences other moral decisions they make).

[the_af]

What the... How can you conflate rape with infidelity? They are completely unrelated things! Rape is definitely a crime and an act of violence worthy of moral outrage. If you are forcing someone to have nonconsensual sex, that's terrible and totally unrelated to cheating. And you can have forced nonconsensual sex within a marriage. Seriously, rape is a completely different issue.

Exposing people to STDs is a problem which can also happen regardless of infidelity. Besides, are you saying if you practice safe sex while cheating then it's morally ok? Is it simply an issue of safe sex?

[moosey]

I'm not defending this position, so please don't pull out pitchforks or anything, just making an argument where this could be expanded into rape charges somewhere:

There are countries where having sex under false pretext is considered rape. For instance: saying that you are going to use a condom then removing it without the knowledge of your partner would be rape. One could argue that being in a marriage with the promise of monogamy, but failing to keep that promise, would mean that all instances of sex with your partner are then rape.

I repeat: I don't agree with this and I think that it belittles people that have actually experienced the horrors of forced rape. Perhaps there should be things protecting the victims of this situation, but calling it rape waters down the word and act. "Sexual Intercourse under False Pretenses" should have it's own set of laws and punishments around it if it should be punished, IMHO.

[PhasmaFelis]

> Pictures don't hurt anyone (except sometimes in the libel/slander sense).

The hell they don't. Talk to someone who was not only abused, but knows that there are unwilling photos of their abuse circulating online for sadists to jerk off over. Psychological trauma is a real thing.

[antillean]

I don't think that's the trick.

I'm talking about greater goods than privacy and order, goods that make privacy and order good.

And I'm not just talking about things that one group or another really thinks should be illegal. I'm also talking about things that we've decided to tolerate as legal, but which we think are wrong -- maybe even grossly wrong -- and therefore (strongly) disapprove of and want to (strongly) discourage. I don't think things are so simple in those cases, either.