John McAfee, the same one who invented the McAfee anti-virus software, points out that there is a huge national security problem associated with the Adult Friend-Finder site (and, of course, similar sites).
Of the 535 members of Congress, only 16 congressmen and two senators were members of this adult website. Most were interested in BDSM. Only three were interested in gay hookups. Of the Fortune 500 corporations, fewer than 1,420 executives (directors, vice-presidents and above) were members. Another 230,000 or so rank-and-file employees of Fortune 500 companies were also members – following in the footsteps of their admired superiors no doubt.

Their interests ranged widely. Of the 2,400,000 odd employees of the US Federal Government, we find a measly 120,000 or so who were members.... This tragically fascinating information comes from a well-publicised hack of Adult FriendFinder...

I need to make something perfectly clear. The hacks that reach public awareness are extremely rare. For a hack to reach public awareness, someone has to make a serious mistake, or they are demanding money or some other asset or, in the case of ROR(RG), they have an axe to grind. This is something you need to carefully consider if you are in the world of information security.
So what's the problem for national security, you ask? He is glad to tell you.
Nearly all of these officials are married with children. Imagine what would happen if Russia, or China, got hold of this information. They would certainly not demand money to keep quiet. No –each of these people would be visited by a warm-hearted, well-dressed, kind and empathetic person whose conversation would go like this:

"We are so sorry that you got caught up in this nonsense, and we realise that it in no way taints your character or value as a productive citizen. Frankly, I myself have done far worse. We, in Russia, take a more practical view to such issues. They are not important.

"We have done what we can to keep your name out of this sad affair and can guarantee it will never come to light. That would help no one and we wish to hurt no one. So you have a friend in me and a friend in the country of Russia.

"I believe I could even help you gain power and prestige in your own country. I am privy to much that is happening behind the scenes in Russia and would be willing to advise you on affairs that impact both or our countries. You may call me at any time. In fact, the vote coming up in July is one such issue that I can give you good advice on. Please call me."
Russian operations of this sort were extremely common in the Cold War. I would think way it would go down is slightly different. Important 'Friendfinders' would get visited, on the site, by someone who somehow perfectly matched what they were secretly dreaming about. The conversation would come later, after there were recordings and videos, and would be much less gently phrased.


Eric Blair said...

I don't think anybody really cares anymore.

Grim said...

That's certainly possible, although there seem to be exceptions: Republicans get a harder time than Democrats, especially for any deviant sexuality; and people still in general care about adultery (with the special exception for Bill Clinton).

Still, after the popularity of those 50 Shades books, that your Congressman occasionally liked a little BDSM might just raise his polling numbers.

Cass said...

Well, I care. It's not totally inconceivable that a person might serially violate one oath sworn before God and the community with a near certainty of deeply hurting and betraying the trust a person he or she sees every day and is supposed to love and yet - inexplicably - keep a far more abstract oath of office out of some twisted sense that his word was actually supposed to mean something.

But it ain't the most likely outcome.

Once people start rationalizing the breaking of promises, breaking the next one just becomes easier. Practice makes perfect.

Anonymous said...

What Cass said. It's not the initial behavior (interest in [consensual sexual recreational activity]) that worries me, even if I may disapprove of it personally. But if the official intends to violate an oath to a spouse, what other oaths and promises might (s)he be willing to break, especially if faced with blackmail?


douglas said...

It would be nice if people cared about the security aspect of it, even if they didn't care about the personal ethics part of it.