I've read a lot about this case, and I generally find that there is very little nuance in the discussions on the topic: as is the case in most such circumstances, people adopt a stance based on an ideologically-defined worldview which informs the entirety of their narrative and argumentation.
One of the two fronts is relatively easy to disregard at least by some criteria: there are ample reasons why people would be loath to accept being cheated on, and these reasons can be substantial enough; therefore, an analysis to oppose the argument that people should be free to have extramarital relations “provided nobody's harmed” is unnecessary — primarily because, as experience would show, it is the rarest of circumstances that nobody's harmed in the process.
But its diametric opposite is also problematic, unbeknownst to most of its proponents; and the reason for that largely rests on the nature of these two media: the Internet and the Ashley Madison service.
For starters, we should identify the nature of the action that brought all this about: a hackers' group that identifies itself as “The Impact Team” started leaking data retrieved from the Ashley Madison network — not only server mapping, employee details and salary figures, but also user information. These actions drew some support from the public that has some problems with the company's ideas, which can be encapsulated in their registered trademark: “Life is short. Have an affair.” And one is wont to agree, at least to some extent: the company's motto alone is enough to make many feel utter disgust and contempt for the enterprise; and many extend that to its users as well.
Like it or not, however, vigilantism is not without grey moral areas; in fact, vigilantism clearly lies in the perceived need to tackle grey areas in a more direct manner that the law does not cover, or that the corrupt status quo is unwilling to let anyone tackle anyway — and it usually comes with a heady side (yes, heady) of holier-than-thou attitude: when was the last time you heard about a vigilante who was uncertain about the means by which they pursue perceived justice?
In this case, the landscape is rife with grey areas. Let us assume the most simple of issues: the sort of data some people, both amateurs and even professionals, for pity's sake, have tried to extract from all this. You see, there's a fatal flaw in that decision: Ashley Madison required an email account for one to subscribe, as far as I can tell from the media, but I've also found out that there was no requirement to verify that account in any way — meaning not only that you weren't sent a confirmation link via email, as is most common nowadays, but that you might as well even enter a completely fake email account (potentially one that not only doesn't exist, but one that cannot exist)... or even someone else's email!
As you can imagine, this latter case can prove disastrous: imagine being told that you can't deny that you were looking to have an affair, what with having an account on the site... What is important to understand here is that it doesn't even have to be your spouse that's looking you up: any acquaintance with a macabre intent to look such details up might find the account registered under your email without your knowledge.
Another example, a bit less benign but certainly understandable, would be people who registered on one hand, but never meant to actually use the service; or who perhaps flirted without any intent to go further with anyone (which, though far from pristinely innocent, still shouldn't warrant the sort of abuse that may erupt from this fiasco).
Battered spouces might also have used the service to maintain some understanding with a third party while they're contemplating where their relationship is heading; and it beggars belief that we should condemn anyone in such a position for considering leaving their spouse. Again, keep in mind these subtle cases that vigilantes would rather crush and burn along with what is rotten and malevolent. In this circumstance, the abusive spouse may find out about this.
On another note, there apparently were people from the LGBTQ minorities who used the service to find people that matched them; and it is important to consider that these included single people who just wanted to find someone they were attracted to, and that in some parts of the world it is illegal to belong in these minorities — which would, again, be simple for the authorities or local mobs to find out and act upon this information promptly, threatening legal and illegal action against them.
Last but not least that I can think of, there have been some unconfirmed reports of suicides of people who were discovered to have allegedly used the service. Personal horror and peer pressure can make someone choose to kill themselves; but it can also be reason enough that some people might attempt to fake a suicide as well, to provide some food for thought (see above examples).
Thus, one has to consider the weight such acts of vigilantism have on other people's lives: the original intent is not enough to quantify how much damage they have effected, because they cannot predict all the possible outcomes; and even intent as to what it was you intended to do, but also how your course of action accomplished that intent — not whom you intended to affect.
From a legal standpoint, it has no bearing whether you intended to harm a different party than the one you actually harmed: the intent to inflict harm is what matter, regardless of the receiving end; and on the other hand, morally speaking, it doesn't matter that you didn't want that sort of effect to occur: in light of your limitations, you bear the full responsibility for opting to take a course of action whose outcome you cannot reasonably predict. Examples correspondingly include firing a gun and hitting a different party than the one you wanted to hit, and firing blindly and hitting someone that you never intended to hit anyway.
However, I will admit that there has been some small benefit in the form of discovering people who have been verified to have used the service (due to payments made using their account information), at least insofar as we can tell; but I ask this question of you: besides hounding some public figure for hypocrisy, primarily on the basis of vigilantism, who and how has actually benefited from all of this? It is something that we all ought to consider before speaking up about this — or any similar incident.
No comments:
Post a Comment