"In summary this thread likely warranted immediate moderation, but given the author's careful publication of just enough data to positively identify a particular individual, coupled with the enormous public interest to learn who does or does not appear on this customer list, information already available for days to the more technically minded, caused me to take no action on this thread."

What tortured and complete rubish logic.

You allow the "enormous public interest" as part of your justification of keeping this data up? What the public is interested in should not be part of how you weight what is right and what is wrong. The pubic will show "enourmous interest" in many, many things about private-citizens that should never be made public.

You talk about Ms Snowden taking journelistic measures and somehow that the omittion of some of the data elevates the post to legitimacy.

It does not.

Now, if Ms Snowden ***'d out the names except for the first and last letters .. AND DIDN'T INCLUDE THEIR ADDRESSES .. but maybe only zipcode ... but did include the full email address (as that is already searchable on many databases) THAT would have been maybe closer to something an actual journelist would do.

Don't fool yourself that the original post, or your reluctance to take it down get anywhere close to "journelism". Take a clue by seeing what other actual journelists and news organizations which operate by a journelistic code are doing. You will find they are not allowing list of names and addresses to exist on thier sites or in their pieces.

If deletion of this information was correct at first, it is correct now.

These people do not deserve to have their names on a searchable list for eternity.

Cary, take the list down.

^^^^ Dude, word of advice, you seriously need to learn how to spell.

SoWhatsThePlanCary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> These people do not deserve to have their names on
> a searchable list for eternity.


Their spouses don't deserve to be left in the dark when it comes to what shitheads they married.

in the know... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Their spouses don't deserve to be left in the dark
> when it comes to what shitheads they married.

That's the business of the couple involved Prurient teenage dickheads have no stake here at all.

in the know... ()

"
Their spouses don't deserve to be left in the dark when it comes to what shitheads they married."

An if Ms Snowden *****'d out the name except for the first and last letters ... coupled with an email address and ZIP .. SO's could have found out.

Then they could have verified it on one of the other searchable sites.

If you had

A*** L******,20105 and an email address .. and you were looking for your husband .. you would have had enough.

SoWhatsThePlanCary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A*** L******,20105 and an email address .. and you
> were looking for your husband .. you would have
> had enough.


No you wouldn't. You can create an email in 10 seconds that is only used for one purpose. A spouse would have no idea if you were smart enough to use a throw away email.

You think about as well as you spell.

Go fuck yourself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in the know... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Their spouses don't deserve to be left in the
> dark
> > when it comes to what shitheads they married.
>
> That's the business of the couple involved

Not when one is left in the dark about it.

> Prurient teenage dickheads have no stake here at
> all.

Innocent bystanders.

Oh .. and you have to just love this BS logic ..

"Generally, dumping private information about ANYONE on Fairfax Underground is forbidden as it qualifies as a personal attack, which is against Fairfax Underground's rules. Indeed had I caught this thread early on before it generated large numbers of legitimate comments it likely would have been outright removed. However, this thread was not intended to be a personal attack against any one person but rather is a list of those affected by a security breach; a list which had been available to the more technically able for days before this post appeared."

So, by that logic, if I hunt down a black guy and linch him, that's a personal attach and wrong .. but if I bomb a black church and kill 100's then that's not a personal attack .. or if a drop a bomb on a black neighborhood .. that makes it somehow oK?

Give me a f'n break Cary.

The number of people effected does not minimize the character of the attack. To each individual, this is an personal attack .. there is no doubt about it.

So, what about the individual posts against individual people subsequent to the original post? People researching INDIVIDUALS .. posting their places of business, posting their FB pages?

That does not qualify as a personal attack?

The original list is a mass, simultaneous personal attack against the people listed.

The subsequent hunting and posting of research on those individuals is a second personal attack on those people listed.

Just stop it. Everyone who cares has probably already pasted the list to their computers.

It's time to take the list down and stop the hunting of these people and let them get their lives back together.

SoWhatsThePlanCary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh .. and you have to just love this BS logic ..
>
> "Generally, dumping private information about
> ANYONE on Fairfax Underground is forbidden as it
> qualifies as a personal attack, which is against
> Fairfax Underground's rules. Indeed had I caught
> this thread early on before it generated large
> numbers of legitimate comments it likely would
> have been outright removed. However, this thread
> was not intended to be a personal attack against
> any one person but rather is a list of those
> affected by a security breach; a list which had
> been available to the more technically able for
> days before this post appeared."
>
> So, by that logic, if I hunt down a black guy and
> linch him, that's a personal attach and wrong ..
> but if I bomb a black church and kill 100's then
> that's not a personal attack .. or if a drop a
> bomb on a black neighborhood .. that makes it
> somehow oK?
>
> Give me a f'n break Cary.

You can't fix your kind of stupid. It's impossible.


If you want to play the game, come prepared to bear the shame.

"If you want to play the game, come prepared to bear the shame."

My name is not on the AM list .. not this one or any of them (as stated many times before)

I know this comes a surprise to someone who would take joy in the suffering of others, but some people stand-up for others when they see them suffering.

I'm just making the case for what it right.

SoWhatsThePlanCary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If you want to play the game, come prepared to
> bear the shame."
>
> My name is not on the AM list .. not this one or
> any of them (as stated many times before)

Who said it was?

> I know this comes a surprise to someone who would
> take joy in the suffering of others, but some
> people stand-up for others when they see them
> suffering.

Who is taking joy?

> I'm just making the case for what it right.

In your own mind. Actions have consequences. Hence, if you want to play the game, come prepared to bear the shame.

That is all?

Your analogy with bombing a church is incorrect. What Cary said was: "Your private information was hacked and far more damaging information is likely available to anyone who can query a SQL database."

It may suck to have your name on a searchable list, but when someone's credit card (and other) information is vulnerable, letting people know that their private data was hacked is the right thing to do.

It's hard to deny that the list might be screwing over somebody's marriage, but it surely isn't revealing names just for that purpose.

SoWhatsThePlanCary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If you want to play the game, come prepared to
> bear the shame."
>
> My name is not on the AM list .. not this one or
> any of them (as stated many times before)
>
> I know this comes a surprise to someone who would
> take joy in the suffering of others, but some
> people stand-up for others when they see them
> suffering.
>
> I'm just making the case for what it right.


You STILL here retard?

Don't you have to meet with the FBI and your high-powered lawyer? lmao

Give it and quit acting like a lil bitch.

The list isn't going anywhere.

Go fuck yourself Wrote:

> That's the business of the couple involved
> Prurient teenage dickheads have no stake here at
> all.

It's everyones' business. your wife IS going to find out, and WE are going to find out, and laugh at you. The public humiliatiopn is part of your punishment, so get used to it.

I think it's a good thing the names were made public. Now, no one can be blackmailed. It would be worse waiting for someone to threaten to reveal your name, rather than dealing with the consequences of hiding.

I hope you don't think that FFXU is the only place this list appears. You are taking on a far bigger job than you think. What is next on your agenda of protecting the stupid (those who used actual e-mails rather than disposable ones, or put real information in)? Mandating that Nigerian 419'ers label their e-mails as frauds?

From what little I've bothered to look at, I haven't seen anyone I know on the list. Although I have at least heard of Herman Munster, at 1313 Mockingbird Lane. Lily is going to take him apart when she sees that (although Grandpa will probably reassemble him).

Yes, divorces are possible because of the list, but I don't see much difference in airing the list than someone informing you that Uncle Fred is skimming off the profits at the family-owned business. Someone who is looking for action on the side is more likely to introduce an STD in the relationship. It might be for the best if the partner knew about their risk of exposure.

Cary made a perfectly acceptable response, and certainly a far better one than your skreeds against him. You are coming off like the husband caught in an affair by a PI who then complains about his wife having him tailed.

If you are offended because you were on the list of those disclosed, then YOU ARE AN IDIOT. There are rules for those engaging in acts they shouldn't be doing. One rule is involve as few people as possible, because the more people that are involved, the greater the likelihood the information will get out. Another is do not leave a "paper trail" because it becomes harder to deny later. Ashley Madison violated both of these along with other rules. When you signed up you might as well have put a bumper sticker on your car saying "I'm considering having an affair".

If it was because the information was supposed to be private, information is only private so long as it is kept between the people involved. Once it spreads beyond that, it becomes the property of the world. Ask Ray Rice about this. Fairfax Underground wasn't the vehicle for turning the information into public information. It simply helped spread the now public information to a wider audience.

If you are offended because others are interested in who is sleeping around, GET OVER IT. People having affairs has been a standard topic for gossip throughout history.