Live data from Hacker News

I Am Mark Zuckerberg

iammarkzuckerberg.com

411–420 of 459 posts

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My deadname was not only owned by some other people in my industry, it was also used by someone else born in the same hospital, same ward on the same day, on the same morning as me. That was endlessly irritating. Glad to see that after five years post abandoning it my contribution to the name is basically gone from the internet now.

>>it was also used by someone else born in the same hospital, same ward on the same day, on the same morning as me. That was endlessly irritating How so? Other than a funny coincidence, how would that ever come up anywhere in anything unless you both lived in a tiny community where everyone knows each other. I just don't understand how someone born on the same day as you having the same name was "irritating".

>I just don't understand how someone born on the same day as you having the same name was "irritating".

Because, lacking a national identity number, the natural way to distinguish to people in a system when the name wouldn’t do is going to be age/birthdate or location.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key term in most statutes is dishonesty. Impersonating someone at their behest as a favour is unlikely to be dishonest.

That's debatable. If I let my friends impersonate me to use my zoo membership for free entrance, then were clearly defrauding the zoo (obviously that's not high stakes, but I dare someone to argue it's not). If one of a set of identical twins is better at math and takes all the math tests for their sibling, that's pretty clearly academic fraud, again pretty low stakes but fraud is still fraud Key note because in case…

There are so many things wrong with this thread. At least you make an effort, but the categorical dismissals are interesting as well and probably explain to some extent why so many hackers end up in trouble with the law.

It's pretty simple: they are deceiving the other party that the document was handed to the right person, the consequences of which range from 'meh' to spending 6 years behind bars.

Let's say this was a summons for a court case. Then the judge would believe the papers were served properly, when in fact they were never served. Permission doesn't enter into it here, it is wilful deception by two parties of a third. The same name should not normally be enough to get away with this but assuming the story is real (there are many reasons to doubt this, such as the ID matching the name, but nothing else) it all depends on who does the checking. In some cases you might not even go home without a small detour in case you are found out (for instance, because the person handing the document over is familiar with the real recipient).

So, jurisdiction matters, what that document was matters, whether the permission was granted in writing (procuration), who the counterparty was, what the value of the document was, whether the parties lived in the same state/province or country and whether or not the permission was communicated to the person passing the document to the wrong recipient (probably not) and lots of other factors besides, such as the person giving permission still evading some legal obligation, which - conveniently - the story doesn't relate (and which hinges on what that document was).

And that's before we get into the wilder options of the second person being social engineered because after all, the only way they could be sure that they were acting on behalf of the real recipient would be to check their identity, in person, and with someone who is able to do that in a way that is legally binding.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#413
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood that they obtained legal documents

They retrieved those documents and gave them to the intended recipient. “Obtain” suggests something longer term.

So the story says. But what if they didn't? What if it turned out the person receiving the document from the person picking it up also wasn't the intended recipient. How would they know? And if so they'd be holding a document that they shouldn't have in the first place.

You could easily be a paw in an identity theft play like that.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#414
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a relatively rare name — I’ve actually never met anyone with my last name, never mind someone with my full name — and this happens to me regularly. Last week I got a job rejection from New Zealand post, for a while I was getting someone’s pay stub notifications from the US, etc. I suspect it’s because I was the first to register the first.last@gmail.com address for my name. I guess it’s a bit like owning a sim…

I use my lastname [at] gmail (same as my HN username). Over the years, I’ve received all sorts of misdirected messages: medical, financial, support, even real estate documents. When it seems important, I do my best to contact the sender and let them know. What I’ve learned is that “no-reply” email addresses can cause real harm in situations where it’s critical to reach an actual person.

I get a ton of email to my gmail address for other people with similar names.

One of them was a director at Google, but I think she retired. Always assumed that meant I'd get a lame work email if I applied there.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#415
post #229

This website looks a lot like the one of Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad.

I think that's the usual way the american attorneys advertise. I kinda like that style. In Poland, attorneys aren't allowed to advertise that expressively, which I think is a stupid regulation.

This is his personal site not his law business site, which he links to in the page.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed a lot of sites and orgs wont accept email domains that aren't gmail, hotmail, outlook, icloud, or yahoo.

Interesting. I've used my personal domain name for email for almost 30 years and I've never had that problem.

It's a tactic to prevent burner/spam accounts created using temporary emails

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#418
post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because Law Firms arent necessarily computer security firms. Lots of people have terrible op sec. Additionally if you the recipient are on gmail it stops mattering, now Google knows your legal woes.

Exactly, I’d never use Gmail for anything sensitive. Even for just personal emails I use my own mailserver. (And again, for truly sensitive stuff I don’t use email at all)

If the sender is using GMail, then using your own mail server is less secure than using GMail as the receiver.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#419
I literally just hired Ben Horowitz last month, but I must assume that mine is the better systems and integrations engineer so I consider myself having getting the better deal.

Re: I Am Mark Zuckerberg

#420
post #399
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why’s that even relevant if the recipient is the wrong address? Email isn’t particularly secure anywhere, and gmail has forwarding and IMAP and aliases and other services that send emails outside of gmail. But sending sensitive documents to the wrong recipient, which was the topic that started this sub-thread, is a case where it does not matter how secure your servers are.

> [...] and gmail has forwarding and IMAP and aliases and other services that send emails outside of gmail. No matter what format you hand a recipient a document in, they can always make a photocopy and pass it on.

Sure. How’s that relevant?
Post reply on HN