Final Project Assignment 2 Final Draft

DESCRIBE A CASE

Ashley Madison was a site that basically capitalized on the fact that people cheat on their spouses. Until they were hacked in 2015. The hackers told Ashley Madison that unless if their site was taken down, they would expose the company's sensitive information and that of their subscribers as well. Ashley Madison did not turn down, so the databases were leaked online exposing hundreds and thousands of peoples information.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/14/news/ashley-madison-settlement/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/ashley-madison-hacking-accounts-married-man-exposes-cheating-website-infidelity-rick-thomas-a7529356.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1708802/sex-lies-and-cyber-attacks-ashley-madison-hack-victims-reveal-the-traumatic-impact-its-had-on-their-relationships/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/28/what-happened-after-ashley-madison-was-hacked

MORAL REASONING

After much research and thought, I do believe that the hackers were wrong for taking that information from the company. It did not belong to them and they had no business causing all of this destruction just because they probably felt some type of way against the site. That gave them no right.

As far as those who got exposed, there are two perspectives that I see this case from that both have the same conclusion. One is that they signed up to this site willingly on their own accord. By doing that alone they could have signed up for anything. Lets be honest people do not read privacy statements of what they entail. Also you can not ever fully trust that any site online that you sign up for will ever keep your information secure.

Yet with all of that said, It was their choice to sign up to this site and they did naively believe that they had a right to privacy, which to some extent they did, and they broke no laws by doing this. They had the right as human beings site or no site to cheat on their spouses all they wanted to. They were breaking no laws and not disturbing the peace to anyone that was not in their marriage. Those who exposed them had no right to vandalize their lives.

PHILOSOPHER OF CHOICE

For my philosopher I chose Judith Butler.

http://jesscastillo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Butler-Response-Performative-Reflections-on-Love-and-Commitment.pdf

"if commitment is to be alive, that is, if it is to belong to the present,

then the only commitment one can make is to commit oneself again and

again. “I love you and I choose you again and again.” I did not just choose

you once, but I continued to choose you, and what there is of me in my

speech is given to you again and again through this speech act, declara-

238 Response

tion, vow, and promise, one that binds me to you in the present, whatever

present that happens to be. That means as well that one binds oneself to

the process of becoming different as circumstances demand, which means

that in all repetition, there is unknowing. One agrees to commit one’s love

again, unknowingly again."

CONTEXTUALIZE

I felt that even though I believe the exposed people of Ashley Madison were already exposing themselves to be attacked, they did deserve privacy. From what I have read it appears that the hackers did have a problem with the morals of Ashley Madison which is why they did their crime. Just to be clear, the hackers committed a crime.

Therefore I chose Judith Butler to rebut the morals that the hackers probably went through when hacking the Ashley Madison database. The rebuttal is that she believes that commitment is absurd. Which by all pretenses is argumentative. People do not stay married forever in most cases and sometimes those who do are not happy. There are studies that say that people in open relationships are happier than those in monogamous relationships.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4366044/People-open-relationships-happier-claims-study.html

Therefore, if they decide to keep their marriage alive by signing up to Ashley Madison that should be a right that they have that regardless of anyone's sentiments should not be exposed.