Ashley Madison email dump catches military members
We can probably put this in the same column with those guys who publish videos of themselves doing dumb things in combat. Several thousand members of the Army and Navy where caught in the dump of cheaters’ emails from the Ashley Madison hack using their military email addresses;
us.army.mil 6788
navy.mil 1665
usmc.mil 809
[…]
va.gov 104
[…]
med.navy.mil 62
usarmy.mil 55
us.af.mil 54
[…]
whitehouse.gov 44
Not particularly bright, especially with the number of free email services. The Hill says that the hackers who published the list says that they did it to shame the users. I’m not sure people that stupid can be shamed.
Wired says that there is no email verification at Ashley Madison, it is possible that some email addresses were used without the owners’ knowledge.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
It wouldn’t surprise me some of those are real, but I bet a lot are fake, especially the whitehouse.gov ones. First?
one way to find out is the listed address and CC# about 80% so far are legit
billclintonlovesbjs@hotmail.com
😀 😀
Yeah, you think someone intent on doing something shady would have better sense than to use an official government-provided email address while doing so.
In fact, they might even set up their own email server so that no one else would know what they were doing.
Every time I think “nobody could be that stupid” it turns out that they can be, and they are. Ashley promised them total anonymity and site security and they fell for it. If you head out with the stated intention of breaking vows, do you use your real name? I never did.
Whenever someone says “people wouldn’t be stupid enough to do something like that” my immediate thought is: You don’t know very many people, do you? 😉
How many people get busted with kiddie pRon on their WORK computers? How many military fakers have claimed to have been awarded the MOH, probably the easiest award to verify?
My point is just because it would be stupid to do something – doesn’t mean stupid people won’t do it.
As The Refreshments sang in their great song Bandito, “Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people.”
Hell, we had a guy try to return a tablet he purchased with the excuse of “All the sudden there was this kiddie porn on here!”
Yeah, he was that kind of stupid.
Also proud to see that my service is leading the way! Now you know why the Duffel Blog sells bumper stickers that say “My Girlfriend’s Husband Fights for Freedom!” 😀
Yep.
There are at least two ‘searchable’ databases now…As you might guess, they’re a little busy…Doh.
No civ@mail.mil?
For anyone who thinks that folks can’t possibly be this stupid,there was an LT in 2/43 ADA that got busted selling coke via his .mil email address.
So, what’s so bad about having an after-hours soda-pop resale business on the side? (smile)
Years ago we busted a Deputy Sheriff selling cocaine, on duty, in his marked patrol car.
Everybody needs a hobby, right?
This is completely NOT surprising on every level.
Must be a reason Air Force is under represented?
Because we know about things like 10minutemail and guerillamail. Make ’em and forget.
HFS, Batman…
Sadly, more proof that what you do on the internet will not be safe, so you better be ready to own it.
This is what we’ve come to. Getting into other peoples business and moving the depravity meter even higher.
My rule is that if I wouldn’t say it, or do it in person, then I don’t do it at all.
I just want to pour a little gasoline on this fire….
With the repeal of DADT and the recent Supreme Court decisions on same sex marriage, what business does the government (including the military) have making judgments about personal morality?
PING budda-bing!!
I know a certain retired General who would wholeheartedly agree with you!
Several, actually. I can think of at least 4 off the top of my head.
Um, because it’s still prohibited under the UCMJ?
Look, one can make a good argument either way on whether adultery SHOULD be prohibited or not under the UCMJ. Argument for: trust and effect on unit morale if it happens within a unit. Argument against: govt shouldn’t be trying to regulate that aspect of personal conduct.
However, until the UCMJ is changed the fact remains that it IS currently prohibited. So until that’s no longer the case, blatant cases will likely be prosecuted (or referred for NJP and/or significant adverse admin action) to avoid the perception of “anything goes”.
Best comparisons I can think of are blackmarketing in Korea or GO-1 in-theater. (I’m presuming the former still is a violation of USFK regulations.) Should those behaviors be prohibited? Arguable. I’d have no problem seeing either or both go away as a UCMJ offense.
But as far as I know currently both of those still are “on the books” as UCMJ violations. And until they aren’t, if you play – be prepared to pay if and when the bill comes due.
From my cursory look-see, it appears that the adultery provision of the UCMJ is inapplicable to married gays/lesbians. One of the crime’s elements is sexual intercourse and that is narrowly defined in the UCMJ. Thus, as matters appear to me to stand, the UCMJ crime of adultery can be applied only to straights. In fact, it also appears that a man or woman who is married to a member of the opposite gender cannot properly be charged with adultery for engaging in homosexual sex. The fact that other charges can be brought is neither here nor there. I am referring exclusively to adultery. Now, if what I wrote is correct, there seems to be a problem in that the law does apply to all married couples equally, but only to straights.
the law does NOT apply to all married couples equally, but only to straights.
Actually, I think it does.
The UCMJ changed in 2007, and again in 2012. The current version is given in the Manual for Courts-Martial (2012). That document may be viewed here:
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm.pdf
The UCMJ does not appear to define explicitly the term “sexual intercourse”. However, it does specifically define the terms “sexual act” and “sexual contact” in Article 120. The definitions appear to be pertinent to both homosexual and heterosexual sexual acts.
I suspect that a court-martial considering the case would use the definition of “sexual act” in any hypothetical adultery prosecution involving a gay or lesbian individual accused of adultery.
“62. Article 134—(Adultery)
a. Text of statute. See paragraph 60.
Thanks for the link. This is from that…
“b. Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse
with a certain person;…”
If the statute reads sexual intercourse, a trier would not be free to insert “sexual act.”
The term sexual intercourse does not include sodomy. If it did, the references to “sexual intercourse and sodomy” in the UCMJ would be unnecessary. Also, there’s the rape and carnal knowledge provisions which go to sexual intercourse, not forcible sodomy. I am waiting for our two resident UCMJ legal experts to chime in on this.
The current UCMJ no nonger has “rape and carnal knowledge” provisions – that language went away the 2007 revisions. Those former provisions are only applicable to offenses committed prior to 2007.
If you’re still seeing that language in the copy of the UCMJ you’re consulting, I’m guessing you’re looking at an outdated copy of the UCMJ. In particular, the “www.ucmj.us” site is in fact woefully out of date – it still uses the pre-2007 language for article 125.
The link I provided above to the 2012 edition of the MCM provides the current UCMJ language.
Additionally, the elements of the crime listed in the MCM are examples; they do not appear in the text of the applicable statutes (10 USC 877 through 934). In particular, adultery is an Article 134 crime and is not explicitly defined in Federal law.
Since the crime is not explicitly defined in statute (general article offense) I’m not certain that a prosecuting attorney would be restricted to that exact language shown in the MCM. In particular, I’d guess the substitution of “sexual act” for “sexual intercourse” would be completely allowable if the adultery charge was brought against a member of a homosexual marriage.
Plus, as I noted previously neither the UCMJ nor the MCM explicitly defines the term “sexual intercourse”.
When all else fails, go to the Military Judges’ Benchbook. The provision below was taken from the Sept 2014 publication, page 787. Unless there is a statutory definition that does not agree with this definition or an appellate court has 86’ed it, it would control:
3-62-1 Adultery.
d. DEFINITIONS AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONS:
“Sexual intercourse” is any penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ by the penis. An ejaculation is not required.
Learn something new every day. Thanks – I hadn’t seen that. I do find it curious that the MCM omits that definition.
I guess a former POTUS must have been basing his “I did not have sex with that woman” assertion on the MJB definition.
However, I’d also look for that definition to change fairly soon. I’m pretty sure the effective edition of the publication (Sep 2014) predates the recent SCOTUS decision regarding gay marriage. I’d look for a future equal protection challenge if the definition remains unchanged.
Which article? 133? Conduct unbecoming?
or Art 120? Maybe Art 125?
Just curious.
Article 134, actually – it’s applicable to both officer and enlisted personnel. Article 133 is applicable to officer personnel only. See the MCM (2012), p. IV-103 for elements of offense and sample specification. (Just happened to look it up for a previous comment.) See the link in my comment immediately above for MCM (2012).
My impression is that adultery is fairly rarely prosecuted. But it’s still a crime on the books.
That is correct. But 2/17 is also correct….adultery requires penis-in-vagina.
However, notice that it is an article 134 crime. That means two things:
#1, it’s not a crime unless that *particular* act of adultery is bad for good order and discipline, or tends to bring the military into disrepute; and
#2, under article 134 (or 133 for officers), *any* act that is bad for good order and discipline, or tends to bring the military into disrepute, can be the basis for a “general” charge…so it is possible that the right cheating circumstances, even on a gay partner, would be chargeable.
Consider the extremes. Extreme #1, sergeant sleeps with private’s lover. Now you have two Soldiers in the same command who want to kill each other, and they’ve poisoned the command relationship. Really bad for order and discipline.
Extreme #2, Soldier is technically married, but the civilian spouse is serving a long jail term, and they’re just waiting for the divorce paperwork to go through. Soldier picks up a new lover. Nobody in the unit really cares. No crime.
I think the more pertinent fact here is the use of official email for personal business.
I’m not a lawer (or an honorary CPO for that matter…) but I think it would be hard to prove that someone committed adultery simply because their email address was listed on the site. Signing up is quite a ways up the road from actually meeting someone and doing the deed.
However – if you have ever read the Acceptable Use Policy (yeah… nobody ever does…) for your gov’t email account, then you can clearly see that it is for official government business only. If someone wants to be a dick about it, they could nail you to the wall for sending someone some pics of your adorable new puppy.
(retiree and dependent accounts not included, if those even still exist.)
Most if not all DoD organizations today have an IT AUP that allows limited personal use of IT assets, including email, on an non-interference basis. Otherwise an employee literally could not surf the web at lunch.
However, unlawful or grossly unethical behaviors (or behaviors that might reflect discredit on DoD) are not covered under those AUPs – my recollection is that those are specifically excluded from what an employee may do as “limited personal use”.
Web surfing is a good example. That’s generally allowed on a non-interference basis – but certain types of sites are off-limits by policy (pr0n, gambling, etc . . . . ). Someone accessing those can end up in hot water pronto.
So using a government email address to sign up for this kind of thing (or other similar questionable activities) would probably indeed be an issue and could get someone in hot water – civilian, contractor, or military. But it would be an issue for a slightly different reason: it was a type of personal use that was specifically forbidden.
You are correct in that registration alone would not be sufficient to prove an adultery charge. That would almost certainly require either an admission, substantial physical evidence (such as pictures, surveillance reports, other similar artifacts, direct observation), or confirmation by the other party involved.
It could, however, make one’s life miserable for a while – as well as possibly kill a career.
While nothing you said was wrong (you are Teh Hondo after all…) I was referring specifically to the AUP for email, not for general IS usage.
However, further proving that one should never argue with Teh Hondo – I went looking for the specific verbiage that I remember regarding the acceptable use of Official Email, but all I can find (in my admittedly brief search…) was the general IS AUP, which is as you have described above.
So, the moral of this story is: Don’t question Hondo. 🙂
Nope, Geetwillikers – continue to argue away. As comments above prove, I’m on occasion just plain wrong.
I try to do my homework and avoid that, and I like to think my “batting average” is pretty decent. But I AM human, regardless of what anyone says about me. (smile)
There is the requirement in the MCM that the adultery be prejudicial to good order and discipline, or bring discredit upon the service.
I don’t think we’ll see many prosecutions from this…..but, I could easily see the services publicly reinforce use of email rules for everyone.
(If there is a senior officer in the bunch, there could be a public sacrifice. Maybe our own version of the recent North Korean Ministry of Defense Change of Responsibility ceremony.)
Oh, gee whizzikers! a bunch of (pick one) sailors / soldiers / Marines / zoomies got caught with their pants down.
If this were the 1960s, the yawn factor would be enormous. And you guys would still blame all on women.
Be curious to find out who the whitehouse dot gov people were. . . . .
I’m sure they were all part of a W/H blue ribbon working group tasked with researching illicit extra marital activities conducted by Americans using a remote Canadian server. The group was on a six year ongoing study with a budget of one billion dollars. It’s all legit, nothing to see here.
bahahahahahahahahahaha ! ! ! !
that’s all folks !!!!!
While I’m sure there are more than a few of these email addresses used by their owners to legitimately sign up with this site I’m reminded of what a disgruntled NCO did to a PL in my last unit.
Essentially this NCO used the PL’s ako email to sign up for every gay dating website, porn host and newsletter he could find. The PL revived something like 200+ emails a day from those sites and it got so bad that ako closed his account and had to give him a new one.
I’m sure maybe at least a couple dozen or so accounts will be something similar across the services.
Oh! Could we get rid of birdbath and dumbassed whipitnflogit that way?
Do you really think those tools are capable of feeling shame about anything, Ex-PH2?
Uh, no. No, I do not.
I was inquiring. That is all.
While it is easy to spoof an email account, it is another thing to spoof his Visa card account number. Follow the payments, they will tell the tale. If you go to the trouble to steal someone’s total identity, why would you stop with an Ashley Madison account.
^^This – is what will tell the tale. Any tom dick or harry can go on any website and type an address, and I read that these folks didn’t do any kind of email verification, so that is even more probable. (reference the screenshot floating around with the genpatraeus@us.gov.mil address listed – patently phony)
However, the paid accounts list CC numbers and addresses as well. It would be a dedicated prankster who went that far to embarrass someone! (reference that Duggar guy whose info has shown up.)
Correct.
However, one published report I’ve read indicated that only a 4-digit number was posted – not the entire credit card number. The source I read also indicated it wasn’t completely clear whether that 4-digit number was the last 4 of the credit card number or all/part of the transaction code for the sign-up transaction.
So unless the full credit card numbers are later made available, what’s been made public so far may not be enough for definitive proof.
A report this morning said that in some cases bogus accounts and pre-paid credit cards were used to try and disguise themselves…. and then they checked the accounts from office computers. Not so bright…
90-95% of profiles on that site were men, and most of the women’s profiles are believed to have been fake.
So, anyone on that site was a gullible idiot.
I can think we can all agree that to use the .gov or. mil e-mail was not the wisest of moves. The real question was how mzny of them uswd the government charge card to pay for it? Just saying, if they weren’t smart enough to use a throw away/free e-mail, were they at least smart enough not to use the GTC???
For the record don’t much like adultery or condone it. Figure one should work out their home problems first…not to mention there’s a little thing called integrity and keeping your word. In this case you wedding vows.
I think you guys all need chastity belts installed.
According to published news reports there is lime 18k women who were real that signed up to use the service as well. So draw your own conclusions there.
I’m just thankful that the news services finally have some real news to report. I was really getting tired of hearing or reading about insignificant things such as Korea and the like.
So playing devils advocate here for a second. The data dump goes back to 2007 of accounts. It also is composed of folks who had deleted thier accounts but the company never did according to the criminals that did the theft. So let’s just assume that Col. Thad “Thunderbolt” Ross went on to Madison in 2008 while looking for love in all the wrong places. He eventually leaves the service in 2011 on a retirement. So now what? Do we drag him back into duty and take him to a GCM for a decision made 8 years ago? What of it was some political player like Frank Underwood who is then voted out of office and then becomes a member of a think tank. What do we do then? Public shaming for what end?
I think those still on active duty or reserve or NG duty positions are hosed and Ditto for those still in office. Yet, for all 15k of those dot mil addresses how many of them are active still and worthy of prosecution will be a question that needs to be asked by those in the five sided wind tunnel when budget time comes up.