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

Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

sherlockproject.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#131

Post by sizzle »

mazambazz wrote: post #114
dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this subaddress all just resolve to the same account? The accounts are free, so just make up a completely different account. Yeah, it might get a bit of a mess for a user to manage, but that's what password managers are for. let's face it, we're not talking about Joey Beercan doing this. Anyone even tossing around the term SecOps is already moved out of mass populace and into the somewhat informed. Someone pr…

It depends on the underlying email server. But strictly speaking, the "+" is a valid identifier, and "joe+admin@example.com" is a completely different address than "joe@example.com". It just so happens that email servers tend to recognize the usage of "+" as a "tag" and route incoming mail using the tag to the root email that precedes the plus and tag. But, as the sender, you cannot assume that this is always the beh…

I use periods and they work fine like for exampl.e@gmail.com or e.xampl.e@gmail.com which surprisingly resolves to my main email and I’ll block spam from any sender spamming that period address. Anyone know why this works?

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#132

Post by eks391 »

immibis wrote: post #101
dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this subaddress all just resolve to the same account? The accounts are free, so just make up a completely different account. Yeah, it might get a bit of a mess for a user to manage, but that's what password managers are for. let's face it, we're not talking about Joey Beercan doing this. Anyone even tossing around the term SecOps is already moved out of mass populace and into the somewhat informed. Someone pr…

Gmail accounts aren't free: I believe they only allow up to 4 to be linked to the same phone number (which is mandatory). Microsoft is worse: they'll let you create an account, then lock it the next day, after you've already used it for something, if you don't link your phone number. Phone number is used because it costs money to get, is hard to get in bulk, and in many countries is always tied to your identity. I wo…

There are several cheap (not free) email providers that allow you to create unique emails per service for this precise purpose, and do not require a phone number, however they are lacking significantly in every other way, like an easy to use inbox, so not great for your main contact. One I tested out I found to be good for these random sites that want emails as your username. Then I set the custom email to forward the mail thereby maintaining unique usernames on each site. If the site does not use an email for the username and does not make the provided email public, you could use your regular email with the handy features that come with a Google/Microsoft suite, or air on the side of caution by still having the unique email.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#133

Post by eks391 »

derektank wrote: post #116
betaby wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just resist the urge to post information you don't want others to have. Self-censor you mean? I personally like that information anonymous account `William Shakespeare` posted around 1585–1613.

I don't understand what point you're trying to draw here. William Shakespeare was by no means anonymous in his day and age and he almost certainly had to consider the views of the aristocracy and other elite figures that might watch his plays i.e. self censor. Ben Johnson, a contemporary playwright, was imprisoned for writing "The Isle of Dogs".

I think parent is saying that by self-censoring, expression others enjoy is lost, with the example of Shakespear as an expresser whose impact would have been lost if he'd decided to be anonymous instead.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#134

Post by sizzle »

eks391 wrote: post #132
immibis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail accounts aren't free: I believe they only allow up to 4 to be linked to the same phone number (which is mandatory). Microsoft is worse: they'll let you create an account, then lock it the next day, after you've already used it for something, if you don't link your phone number. Phone number is used because it costs money to get, is hard to get in bulk, and in many countries is always tied to your identity. I wo…

There are several cheap (not free) email providers that allow you to create unique emails per service for this precise purpose, and do not require a phone number, however they are lacking significantly in every other way, like an easy to use inbox, so not great for your main contact. One I tested out I found to be good for these random sites that want emails as your username. Then I set the custom email to forward th…

This functionality is built into iCloud subscriptions with throw away Apple addresses that resolve to your AppleID registered email.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#135

Post by seanmcdirmid »

saturn8601 wrote: post #113
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats cancel and Republicans mostly double down. I don’t think there is anything Trump can do at this point to horrify or even just dissuade his base, for example.

Yes and no. He has a clear mandate to fix price increases and inflation. If he doesn't he will lose the newcomers that held their nose voting for him. If he screws up big time he will be frozen in 26 and ride out his presidency having accomplished nothing. His core base that you are talking about was always a declining minority.

That’s true. It’s even worse, though, since he promised a bunch of stuff that he can’t deliver or if he delivers (high tariffs, mass deportation), inflation will probably boom. Get the popcorn because the first month after 1/20 will be interesting (and maybe stock up on some electronics that are probably going to get really expensive).

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#136

Post by bjourne »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #20

I dont plan to run for president or anything, but find myself increasingly censoring my online speech. I think the biggest risk is some out of context post being pulled into a civil suit, or professional cancellation following that. Things like advice in an alcohol recovery forum would be prime evidence for a liability suit. There are also groups that vacuum the internet for offensive posts, and use them to try to ge…

Herding is the best defense. If everyone who expresses opinions online do so non-anonymously it becomes much more difficult for the sleuths to target specific individuals. If everyone runs the risk of getting "sniped" for something taken out of context they wrote 10 years ago, the tactic becomes less effective.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#137

Post by t0bia_s »

BoxedEmpathy wrote: post #89
dylan604 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until some ML process is learned to give a probability that accounts are the same based on writing styles Staying anonymous is very difficult

I specifically write with different perspectives, tones, and opinions on different sites in a probably vain attempt to mitigate this. For example, on YouTube I use twitch slang, and on Reddit I use TikTok slang, and on TikTok I use reddit slang. On hackernews a use a slightly whimsical pedantically-infused undergrad tone.

You really care about this and use most privacy invasive platforms at same time? Sounds like interesting acrobatics to me.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#138

Post by immibis »

penguinburglar wrote: post #17
gotoeleven wrote: post #14

This will be very handy because when I see someone post something I disagree with on HN I can also go downvote them on reddit and swipe them in the ugly direction on tindr and/or grindr. I am justified in doing this because everything I don't like should be banned.

Don't forget to report the reddit posts for suicide concerns.

For the unfamiliar: this causes a reddit-owned bot to send them a passive-aggressive private message telling them how not to kill themselves. There's no way to know who caused it to be sent.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#139

Post by TacticalCoder »

Tepix wrote: post #23

And this makes it obvious why you should use a unique username everywhere! It makes pervasive tracking a lot harder. Also when you do any research on health related topics, be extra privacy conscious.

But then at this point we can take a username, take a user's posts on one site, train a LLM with these posts and ask the LLM to write comments in the style of that user on another forum/subject.

How do you even determine anymore if something is really written by someone?

Websites are already for a huge part written by bots/LLMs and we all know to take them with a huge grain of salt.

How long until we consider users posts aren't to be trusted anymore either?

It already started (impersonating usernames) for sure.

So what is this even tracking?

Heck, at this point it's nearly a guarantee we already have bots trained on outputs of other bots.

I wonder what the implication of all this is going to be.

Re: Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks

#140

Post by purkka »

sizzle wrote: post #131
mazambazz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the underlying email server. But strictly speaking, the "+" is a valid identifier, and "joe+admin@example.com" is a completely different address than "joe@example.com". It just so happens that email servers tend to recognize the usage of "+" as a "tag" and route incoming mail using the tag to the root email that precedes the plus and tag. But, as the sender, you cannot assume that this is always the beh…

I use periods and they work fine like for exampl.e@gmail.com or e.xampl.e@gmail.com which surprisingly resolves to my main email and I’ll block spam from any sender spamming that period address. Anyone know why this works?

This is a Gmail-specific feature. I'd guess it's there for user convenience and some protection against typos (accidental or malicious).

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7436150?hl=en

Post reply on HN