First Ashley Madison Divorce

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/11815766/Ashley-Madison-Britains-first-divorce-proceedings-launched.html

Gay People At Risk After Ashley Madison Hack

http://news.sky.com/story/1539560/gay-people-at-risk-after-ashley-madison-hack

"There are 1,200 email addresses with the Saudi Arabia suffix where homosexuals face the death penalty.

"More than 50 accounts are from Qatar where homosexual relationships are punishable by five years in prison.

"And there are 1,500 from Turkey where homosexuality isn't illegal but you can get kicked out of the country or banned from military services."

Details of the site's 37 million members were obtained by hackers in July, who demanded that the site be shut down.

---

luckily for some posters here and the in the UK, married men can have sex other men and not count as adultery. An instance where inequality in law is beneficial to the gay community.

But isn't it about time to bring marriage law compatible with divorce law?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Gay People At Risk After Ashley Madison Hack

http://news.sky.com/story/1539560/gay-people-at-risk-after-ashley-madison-hack

"There are 1,200 email addresses with the Saudi Arabia suffix where homosexuals face the death penalty.

"More than 50 accounts are from Qatar where homosexual relationships are punishable by five years in prison.

"And there are 1,500 from Turkey where homosexuality isn't illegal but you can get kicked out of the country or banned from military services."

Details of the site's 37 million members were obtained by hackers in July, who demanded that the site be shut down.

---

luckily for some posters here and the in the UK, married men can have sex other men and not count as adultery. An instance where inequality in law is beneficial to the gay community.

But isn't it about time to bring marriage law compatible with divorce law?

So a man having sex with another man doesn't count as adultery? I guess it would need to come under "unreasonable behaviour" instead.

That's insane.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Gay People At Risk After Ashley Madison Hack

http://news.sky.com/story/1539560/gay-people-at-risk-after-ashley-madison-hack

"There are 1,200 email addresses with the Saudi Arabia suffix where homosexuals face the death penalty.

"More than 50 accounts are from Qatar where homosexual relationships are punishable by five years in prison.

"And there are 1,500 from Turkey where homosexuality isn't illegal but you can get kicked out of the country or banned from military services."

Details of the site's 37 million members were obtained by hackers in July, who demanded that the site be shut down.

---

luckily for some posters here and the in the UK, married men can have sex other men and not count as adultery. An instance where inequality in law is beneficial to the gay community.

But isn't it about time to bring marriage law compatible with divorce law?

So a man having sex with another man doesn't count as adultery? I guess it would need to come under "unreasonable behaviour" instead.

That's a good point.

I guess that needs to be tested in court.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Gay People At Risk After Ashley Madison Hack

http://news.sky.com/story/1539560/gay-people-at-risk-after-ashley-madison-hack

"There are 1,200 email addresses with the Saudi Arabia suffix where homosexuals face the death penalty.

"More than 50 accounts are from Qatar where homosexual relationships are punishable by five years in prison.

"And there are 1,500 from Turkey where homosexuality isn't illegal but you can get kicked out of the country or banned from military services."

Details of the site's 37 million members were obtained by hackers in July, who demanded that the site be shut down.

---

luckily for some posters here and the in the UK, married men can have sex other men and not count as adultery. An instance where inequality in law is beneficial to the gay community.

But isn't it about time to bring marriage law compatible with divorce law?

Lucky you say?
Its appalling that some countries still go off myths to create laws and criminalize love between two consenting adults.
So you are saying gay coupls cannot divorce now?
Its actually a disadvantage for gay couples not to be able to use adultery, which speeds up the process of divorce.
So yes equality is needed so homosexuals can also use this terminology.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Gay People At Risk After Ashley Madison Hack

http://news.sky.com/story/1539560/gay-people-at-risk-after-ashley-madison-hack

"There are 1,200 email addresses with the Saudi Arabia suffix where homosexuals face the death penalty.

"More than 50 accounts are from Qatar where homosexual relationships are punishable by five years in prison.

"And there are 1,500 from Turkey where homosexuality isn't illegal but you can get kicked out of the country or banned from military services."

Details of the site's 37 million members were obtained by hackers in July, who demanded that the site be shut down.

---

luckily for some posters here and the in the UK, married men can have sex other men and not count as adultery. An instance where inequality in law is beneficial to the gay community.

But isn't it about time to bring marriage law compatible with divorce law?

Lucky you say?
Its appalling that some countries still go off myths to create laws and criminalize love between two consenting adults.
So you are saying gay coupls cannot divorce now?
Its actually a disadvantage for gay couples not to be able to use adultery, which speeds up the process of divorce.
So yes equality is needed so homosexuals can also use this terminology.

Where did I say gay people can't divorce, dumb ass?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Lucky you say?
Its appalling that some countries still go off myths to create laws and criminalize love between two consenting adults.
So you are saying gay coupls cannot divorce now?
Its actually a disadvantage for gay couples not to be able to use adultery, which speeds up the process of divorce.
So yes equality is needed so homosexuals can also use this terminology.

Where did I say gay people can't divorce, dumb ass?

I think you will find it was you being a dumb ass thinking adultery not being classed in divorce for homosexuals was a benefit.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Gay People At Risk After Ashley Madison Hack

http://news.sky.com/story/1539560/gay-people-at-risk-after-ashley-madison-hack

"There are 1,200 email addresses with the Saudi Arabia suffix where homosexuals face the death penalty.

"More than 50 accounts are from Qatar where homosexual relationships are punishable by five years in prison.

"And there are 1,500 from Turkey where homosexuality isn't illegal but you can get kicked out of the country or banned from military services."

Details of the site's 37 million members were obtained by hackers in July, who demanded that the site be shut down.

---

luckily for some posters here and the in the UK, married men can have sex other men and not count as adultery. An instance where inequality in law is beneficial to the gay community.

But isn't it about time to bring marriage law compatible with divorce law?

Lucky you say?
Its appalling that some countries still go off myths to create laws and criminalize love between two consenting adults.
So you are saying gay coupls cannot divorce now?
Its actually a disadvantage for gay couples not to be able to use adultery, which speeds up the process of divorce.
So yes equality is needed so homosexuals can also use this terminology.

It doesn't just affect gay people. A woman whose husband sleeps with another man can't divorce him for adultery, and a man whose wife sleeps with another woman can't divorce her for adultery.

They would have to use unreasonable behaviour, which wouldn't really affect the outcome of the divorce.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Lucky you say?
Its appalling that some countries still go off myths to create laws and criminalize love between two consenting adults.
So you are saying gay coupls cannot divorce now?
Its actually a disadvantage for gay couples not to be able to use adultery, which speeds up the process of divorce.
So yes equality is needed so homosexuals can also use this terminology.

It doesn't just affect gay people. A woman whose husband sleeps with another man can't divorce him for adultery, and a man whose wife sleeps with another woman can't divorce her for adultery.

They would have to use unreasonable behaviour, which wouldn't really affect the outcome of the divorce.

And homosexuals cannot divorce each other for adultery.
The law needs amending but to claim homosexuals benefit from this is as seen absurd.

Does the UK still has adultery laws?
My god what century do you people live in


well there will probably be a lot of divorces... and it does prove that the idea that homosexual marriage will in anyway tarnish the already smashed shit heap that is the institution of marriage is a load of crap. Heterosexuals have done a great job of doing that already.

No adultery laws Veya, just different grounds for divorce.

I don't have much sympathy for those who joined that site, but are they actually looking for the hackers? Hacking is a criminal offence isn't it?

@raggs
sort of... depends on the technicalities on how they did it. if hacking was actually illegal or they made laws that protected you from hackers google, adobe, apple (most of the major tech companies) would be charged with hacking, as say google for example more than half the code in any of their apps is for 'hacking' you (if hacking is secretly taking data) the entire Google OS and Apple OS is built to do exactly what they would need to make illegal to make hacking illegal.

from what i understand this was an inside job so may not be 'illegal' in the criminal sense but would be from a contractual sense. seem it was the work of a pissed of technician they had employed as it seem to be physically transferred from the server to a USB... that may just speculation from technical forums i have not seen it reported in the news (but they don't always since most people don't really understand it anyway)

veya_victaous wrote:@raggs
sort of... depends on the technicalities on how they did it. if hacking was actually illegal or they made laws that protected you from hackers google, adobe, apple (most of the major tech companies) would be charged with hacking, as say google for example more than half the code in any of their apps is for 'hacking' you (if hacking is secretly taking data) the entire Google OS and Apple OS is built to do exactly what they would need to make illegal to make hacking illegal.

from what i understand this was an inside job so may not be 'illegal' in the criminal sense but would be from a contractual sense. seem it was the work of a pissed of technician they had employed as it seem to be physically transferred from the server to a USB... that may just speculation from technical forums i have not seen it reported in the news (but they don't always since most people don't really understand it anyway)

Of course their are laws. In the US there's the CFAA, and various state laws like, for example, New York's Computer Trespass Act. In the UK there's the Computer Misuse Act of 1990, and the Data Protection Act of 1998. Google, adobe, apple (most of the major tech companies) get around the law by their agreements.

Ya know, where you push the button that says: "I agree"? Oh you didn't actually read it?

those agreement are not legal in Australia. That is actually Why Apple got taken to court by the ACCC

And For any of those laws to apply you have to lock it. Most people don't even know how. if you left the backdoor open you made the data publicly accessible. so no trespass.

And IF those agreements worked, all I'd have to get you to do it click on one, Now Considering the main way I am going to hack you any way is by getting you to install an application that i made that will give me elevated right to machine and let me open the door that is really easy, You clicked agree install therefore legally you opened the door.(other wise wanna be hacker got the toolkit from a hacking resource site, although then the hacker just got hacked by a bigger hacker... probably).

the laws are useless as they are written by lawyers and bureaucrats not technocrats.
So like i said depends on the technicality, the law is more full of hole than a slice of Swiss cheese PURPOSELY to allow those companies to use their business model AND all of them openly say they hand information on the CIA.

the laws mean nothing, you want protection you have to employ it. I literally get paid to 'counter hack' applications like chrome to prevent them doing the evil shit

P.S. i have fully removed Chrome and all google apps from Home PC