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

101–110 of 168 posts

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

#101

Post by immibis »

dylan604 wrote: post #66
Tepix wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, another thing you can do is use email subadressing for every account you create, ideally with a non-default separator (i.e., not "+").

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 wonder what the market for throwaway phone number verification is worth.

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

#102

Post by immibis »

casey2 wrote: post #87

It's a really overengineered fn() { browser site1/$1 site2/$1 ... } Tools like these insult the users' intelligence and generate needless drama[1] the only data needed are the urls from https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock/blob/master/she... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1at9br4/i_am_new_to...

collecting that data is worth something.

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

#103

Post by [deleted] »

inerte wrote: post #100
cookiengineer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter for the next day's witch hunt They are just gonna make fake accounts that look like yours and shitpost ahead anyways. Social media has multiple problems, including authenticity, transparency, validity and verifiability. All of which don't exist and make it the optimum propaganda machine (referring to the criteria that Chomsky described) because it can be corrupted through multiple attack vectors. If we…

A state funded platform with a focus on authenticity, transparency, validity and verifiability, is the best thing against censorship? I don’t get how.

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by stult »

dylan604 wrote: post #66
Tepix wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, another thing you can do is use email subadressing for every account you create, ideally with a non-default separator (i.e., not "+").

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…

> Doesn't this subaddress all just resolve to the same account?

Not in OAuth/OIDC compliant identity providers. As one example, I frequently use + email addresses for testing on auth0-secured apps, where I use the + text to tag a role or some other user attribute that identifies what makes the test account special. eg stult+admin-staging@example.com or stult+user-declined-gdpr-prod@example.com. Each plus variant resolves to its own separate account with its own password (which I do in fact manage via a credential manager), without requiring me to set up multiple full email addresses to simulate multiple users with verified email addresses.

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

#105

Post by immibis »

blooalien wrote: post #55
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.

> "I don’t think there is anything Trump can do at this point to horrify or even just dissuade his base, for example." Pretty sure it's pretty close to true at this point that he actually could get away with literal cold-blooded murder in public at this point and his cult would fold themselves in half backwards tryin' to justify it somehow. [0] [0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-...

I mean, he supports the Gaza situation.

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

#106

Post by immibis »

jmyeet wrote: post #18

Remember when IPv6 decided on 128 bit addreses and defaulting to /64 blocks because someone thought using a 48-bit MAC address as the IPv6 equivalent of a port was a good idea? Fast forward a decade or two and we realize how this is a PII leak issue so nobody does it but we're still stuck with 128-bit addresses (for those who use IPv6). There are several things that are a security issue or simply a privacy issue. The…

You're not required to put a MAC in the last 64 bits, but the fact that your ISP has to give you at least 64 bits is very cool.

Privacy addresses are random and periodically rotated.

The IPv6 equivalent of a port is a port.

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

#108

Post by noman-land »

yieldcrv wrote: post #30
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To socially harass and drive to suicide anyone that doesn't conform to the dominate cultural outlook. Think that's creepy? Well, you just made the list!

I’m on a lot of lists and still have TSA Precheck, Global Entry, can hold US security clearances, pass professional background checks so what are you lesser relevant people worried about exactly?

What lists are you on?

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

#109

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

nurettin wrote: post #54
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.

This is why I try to use the same name across websites. I want to be identified as the same person. Just resist the urge to post information you don't want others to have.

Then I wouldn't be able to talk about my kinks anywhere

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

#110

Post by ryandrake »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #91
null0pointer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> try to get people fired for things they said 10 years ago I assume the implication here is that the thing they said 10 years ago was less inappropriate back then. So how do you predict sensitivity changes 10 years in the future to limit your speech today? Even if you delete posts after, say 1 year, archives exist. Shouldn’t you just not say anything if you’re afraid of this? Maybe discussion of self-censorship like…

I wasn't implying that it depends on sensitivity changes, although that is possible too. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. My thought was more about time and distance. Something can be unpopular or even wrong when it's first said too. People are dynamic and change over time. The mechanism of change is living their lives. Taboos can change as well, so there is a motivation to steer clear of controversial topics in reco…

Yea, that's also a big danger: A totally innocent or trivial comment written today might be taboo in 10 years, and some future justice warrior is sure to dig it up and use it against you, and you have no idea what is going to be taboo. Maybe in the far future, owning pets will be taboo, and all the pictures of me and my dog are going to be dug up and used to shame me for violating an animal's sovereignty or something.

There is no way to know what people are going to get offended about in the future, but the clear trend is people getting offended about more and more things over time, rather than fewer and fewer things.

Post reply on HN