Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

mako.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 400 posts

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#331

Post by mmcnl »

rglullis wrote: post #130
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it known that domain registrars are better than GMail in this regard? Not asking sarcastically, but I had my domain taken over by registrar(not released to public, just registrar took control of it) after few week of notice when auto renew failed to charge my credit card, and my credit card was working fine elsewhere. Also many registrar like Namecheap cancelled subscription for Russian customers during this invas…

Now you know why there are still some people that still take "web3" seriously. It's the only system where you are not at the mercy of some external entity to be always benevolent. Seriously, ENS and Handshake alone should be enough of a reason to silence all of those who keep repeating "but blockchain has no real world applications".

Web 3 introduces new problems because of decentralization. It's not a solution, it's an alternative.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#332

Post by corobo »

drooopy wrote: post #207
readsadhours wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is irrelevant. Any country in the EU might do the same. I would hate to lose my domain because of this.

Again, not the same thing. British people didn't lose it. Nobody took it away against the public's will. They voted in favour of getting rid of it.

I specifically remember voting against brexit. Guess I ticked the wrong box.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#333

Post by ffpip »

crazygringo wrote: post #321
jmbwell wrote: post #311

Major vendors have realized this as well, and are putting less information in their emails as a result. If you’re my customer and a Gmail user and I send you order details, financial/credit info, any number of things I might know about you that Google might not know already, Google learns that about you from me. Instead, I’m going to send you an email that prompts you to come back to my site or app to get your tracki…

I don't know what you're talking about. I get order confirmations from retail stores all the time with full details of my order, every item listed in full detail, last 4 digits of credit card used, etc. I see no change in this over time, nor do I know why companies would even care that an e-mail provider (including Google) would be able to read that information. I don't think this phenomenon exists at all. The only t…

> I see no change in this over time, nor do I know why companies would even care that an e-mail provider (including Google) would be able to read that information. I don't think this phenomenon exists at all.

https://thehustle.co/09032020-amazon-order-confirmations/

https://www.macobserver.com/link/amazon-no-longer-including-...

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#334

Post by namrog84 »

yabatopia wrote: post #91
juunpp wrote: post #2

I have actually been receiving much spam from gmail addresses lately and have considered banning the domain altogether. > I was surprised to find out that my friend Peter Eckersley — a very privacy conscious person who is Technology Projects Director at the EFF — used Gmail I find that the EFF does this more often than not, like how they also criticize Amazon for giving police warrant-less access to Ring cameras... a…

> I have actually been receiving much spam from gmail addresses lately and have considered banning the domain altogether. For some accounts I block all Gmail usernames ending with a number: from 0@gmail.com to 9@gmail.com. The only exceptions are addresses that I have added to my whitelist. A bit drastic, but it did wonders to my mailbox.

Looking thru my personal spam vs legit emails. I see no indication that there is more spam from ends with number than not. But I'm probably biased.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#335

Post by rglullis »

ajross wrote: post #329
rglullis wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone does. Who?! Give it a name, or set of names. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but you are far from it. > There's a lot more wealth concentration on the blockchain First, with Ethereum you need 67% of the staked ETH to make an attack on the network. Second, stakers do not have power to change consensus rules. They are not able to dictate how people transact (not without losing their take) and they are not abl…

> Third, do you understand that even if one single entity had that much power to launch an attack of the network, it would not be in their interest to do so? If that were true, then why was the Ethereum network attacked and forked last month? I think what's happening here is that you've confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil", because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions about the futur…

> Ethereum network attacked and forked last month

What?!

What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about?

Please, provide actual information instead of throwing around sites that are clearly just helping you to confirm your biases.

> you've (sic) confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil" because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions

Not really. The thing that I care about is self-sovereignty. I do not want to depend on a system where any single entity or institution (whether is a big corporation or a government) can have this type of control over me and that leave without choice.

But it seems that it doesn't really matter what I think though, you already have made your mind and you are not interested in a healthy discussion. Have a good one.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#336

Post by anticensor »

bushbaba wrote: post #41

The US should use the current market decline to split up Google. Splitting it up would allow for more competition and overall improve the tech sector. Ideally you'd see the government force a split up Youtube, Cloud, Search, and their Ad Exchange into separate companies.

I would rather like to see Google stripped from for-profit status. How Google earns its money does not really allow decoupling Search from Ads.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#337

Post by YeBanKo »

jjcon wrote: post #293
geraldyo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to have any actual cases you can point me to? I see this all the time in HN but it's never beyond "a buddy of mine said that he didn't do anything wrong and somehow they got locked out forever with no recourse". Or it's someone saying that happened to themselves, and then they say they never did anything bad with their gmail. Which may or may not be true?

I got locked out of my Gmail for a few years because I moved internationally and Google decided it just didn't like my new ip. I had access to the recovery email and would even get, "someone attempted to sign in emails." But Google just wouldn't let me in at all. I contacted support and they were no help at all. I tried to vpn back to normal locations but at that point I was flagged or something. I would try every fe…

This happened to me, except I never got my account back.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#338

Post by rglullis »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #269
Jommi wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're confusing web3 with crypto here. This is a very common mistake. There is no centralized "owner". You can become part of the network just like anyone else. No single party can do anything you describe. You also seem to being centralized exchanges to the discussion - they have no relevance here. Trading can be done in a decentralized fashion as well.

>>you're confusing web3 with crypto here. This is a very common mistake. It's certainly one I'm making. If we take crypto / blockchain out, what IS "web3", and how is it better to web 1.0?

It's a problem of most buzzwords, there is no formal definition and it largely depends on context.

If I were to give you my attempt of an definition, it would be: the main idea behind "web3" is to have systems where no single entity can gate-keep users. It's not supposed to be "better than web 1.0", but mostly to be a contrast with the "walled garden" platforms and social networks that defined "web 2.0".

So, by that definition, social media services powered by ActivityPub that allow communication between different services are a step towards web3 compared with the "web 2.0" social networks like Facebook or Twitter. Messaging protocols that Matrix, XMPP are a step towards web3 in comparison with basically any messenger protocol that is controlled by Big Tech, etc. Content distribution based on systems like IPFS are a step towards web3 in comparison with traditional websites.

The main thing is these systems still have central points where users can be controlled or censored. An user of Mastodon (or any federated service) can be kicked out by the server admin and will have no recourse to get access back.

To be fully permissionless, a distributed system needs to be able to reach consensus without having to appeal to any central authority. "Consensus" here means basically anything about the "state" of the distributed system: was this message really sent by Alice to Bob? If Charlie wants to buy an e-book from David, how can we verify if Charlie has sent the payment to David, and how can David prove that Charlie now has access to the e-book file? This is the part where blockchain helps.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#339

Post by rglullis »

denton-scratch wrote: post #214
rglullis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you need is to have DNS servers reading ENS' equivalent of MX records. Failing that, you can even have that implemented at the email client or OS level.

Sorry, but that seems to require that my bank and all my friends adopt some skanky modified DNS resolver. Is that right? How exactly does that benefit them? And the alternative you're suggesting is that they replace their OS, or adopt some mutant mail client? Few of my friends have ever used a proper email client at all . And which alternative OS implements this? And again, what incentive do my correspondents have to…

> How exactly does that benefit them?

If your friends wants to access a website that has been blocked by some authority, they can with this system. With the status quo, they can not.

> replace their OS or adopt some mutant mail client?

No, there is nothing stopping MS or Apple from adding this functionality to their own systems. All it would take is for them to see increased demand for it.

> not a proposal that has much to do with the real world.

What I am describing is a possible solution for a very specific problem, namely the lack of distributed identity systems (domain names) that are permissionless and censorship-resistant.

You are right that this is not a concern for the majority of people "in the real world", but the whole conversation started because someone is talking about how many people lost access to their emails and domains due to abuse/mismanagement/arbitrary rule enforcement from different domain registrars.

IOW, if you are okay with the status quo, good for you. But consider yourself privileged and don't dismiss the complaints of those who are building and asking for better alternatives.

Re: Google has most of my email because it has all of yours (2014)

#340

Post by rglullis »

immibis wrote: post #326
rglullis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you know why there are still some people that still take "web3" seriously. It's the only system where you are not at the mercy of some external entity to be always benevolent. Seriously, ENS and Handshake alone should be enough of a reason to silence all of those who keep repeating "but blockchain has no real world applications".

It has its own problems though: what if you lose access to your key? The other day someone suggested making real estate NFTs. What happens if the "owner" of some real estate loses their key?

> what if you lose access to your key?

Social recovery: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html

> The other day someone suggested making real estate NFTs.

Looking at the current implementations, it is a terrible idea. But it doesn't mean that the problem can not be solved.

> What happens if the "owner" of some real estate loses their key?

Just spitballing here: take the idea of social recovery further to include the current legal institutions as a backup instead of the main authority. For example, a contract that manages such high-value NFTs could require a set of government-sanctioned notaries who would have permission to transfer the NFT to any new address. So if you are the owner and you lose the key (or you get hacked), you could be made whole by presenting some type of "real world" legal evidence to the notary.

Post reply on HN