So… was the claimed Ashley Madison breach a hoax? Gina Smith argues that it was. Or she’s pulling her own hoax to see how susceptible journalists are. So far, she hasn’t really presented any evidence to support claims which she outlines in this post. Smith writes, in part:
Through doxens of interviews with Avid and Ashley Media insiders and execs, documents, records and other evidence, how the world was duped in the craze of what can only be portrayed as some kind of Ashley Madison fever, an illness that so paralyzed journalists that not a one caught what should have been obvious the very first day of coverage, back on July 20: That all but a handful of details of this story trace directly to one and only one source, the sprawling paid content service/entertainment vehicle owned by UK Global Media Inc., MailOnline.
Read more on ANewDomain while I go grab some popcorn.
I think Dissent needs to contact:
A) John McAfee to analyze this.
B) The RCMP and FBI & ask if they’ve been duped.
C) The Toronto police to inquire if they are aware it’s all a hoax
D) The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and their international counterparts investigating this and ask how long they have been aware that this is a hoax.
In other news, Dissent switched from coffee to green tea.
Some things are likely faked (false leads), but…
I don’t think she is saying that there was no breach.
Then again, I’m not confident I understand what she is claiming other than ALM is a huge operation for advertising and some of the claims about the breach afterwards were false….?
The author of the article on ANewDomain assumes that Daily Mail is a reputable news outlet here in the UK. In fact Daily Mail is just another speculative tabloid like The Sun but with a fancier visual design.
I don’t think she is assuming that if she’s saying their article read like sponsored (paid) content. But then again, I’m not sure I understand what she *is* saying. The page I had linked to changed substantially after I posted the blog entry and reading the silently updated page and links confuses me more. I wish she had written it all more clearly/coherently.
She is incapable of writing something that most can comprehend.Maybe she feels like she was left out. Maybe she was drunk. maybe all of the above. In any event, it appears an attempt to gain some attention, and possible boost her silly attempt into the main media stream. Those type of things are almost always on my ignore list.