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

I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

thelocalstack.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 516 posts

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#491

Post by Barrin92 »

csmpltn wrote: post #468
Barrin92 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why does the US create so much stuff that Europe doesn't? because the "stuff" in question is social networks who live, as the name suggests, off network effects. To have a European LinkedIn would require everyone in Europe to switch at the same time. Which can be trivially arranged, we just would need the courage to ban LinkedIn and every other American social media company. We'd have a clone up and running in a mon…

> "We just would need the courage to ban LinkedIn and every other American social media company. We'd have a clone up and running in a month. You only need to look to China who did exactly this." That's socialist dictatorship. Why do you want the EU to be more like China, instead of the EU being more like the US? It will result in further isolation and decline of Europe which sorely depends both on the US (and China)…

>Why do you want the EU to be more like China

I don't want to, but if people like you represent how Americans think, with nothing but contempt for Europe and only obsessed with power, then the Chinese were right about who Americans are and we were naive.

Then achieving autonomy quickly is necessary. And it's not about isolationism, just different priorities. The Chinese aren't isolated either. It's the US that's isolating itself right now as other countries see how they're treated.

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#492

Post by godelski »

Delk wrote: post #459
godelski wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd assume they'd use something akin to a perceptual hash. Btw, hashes aren't unique. I really do mean that an input doesn't have a unique output. If f(x)=y then there is some z such that f(z)=y. Remember, a hash is a "one way function". It isn't invertible (that would defeat the purpose!). It is a surjective function. Meaning that reversing the function results in a non-unique output. In the hash style you're thinki…

> Remember, a hash is a "one way function". It isn't invertible (that would defeat the purpose!). It is a surjective function. Meaning that reversing the function results in a non-unique output. This is a bit of a nitpick and not even relevant to the topic, but that's not the reason cryptographic hashes are (assumed to be) one-way functions. You could in principle have a function f: X -> Y that's not invertible but f…

Yeah that's a good addition. I think often the words we use can really make things more confusing. Like I hate when people say invertible but in reference to a function that isn't bijective. Why not say reversible? (No complaints with the convention of image/preimage)

Which it's very similar to the problem created by saying "one way". It just isn't one way. Going the other direction is perfectly possible but incredibly hard to find the origin. The visual metaphor I like to use for people is it's like you walk out of a room and into a hallway of doors that are all identical looking. Ignoring the fact that you could just physically turn around, it'd be very hard to figure out which one you actually came from.

But maybe what I like least is that we end up having so many terms for the same general concept. It's one thing when they're discovered independently but I'm pretty confident the computer scientists that pioneered hashes were quite familiar with the mathematics and nomenclature.

  > inverse computation would take an intractable amount of time.
On a real side note I really like this explanation of P vs NP as it explicitly talks about reversibility. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OPsH8PK7xM

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#494

Post by fsckboy »

wolvoleo wrote: post #199
poszlem wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment constantly. It is genuinely hilarious to watch Americans lecture the world about the free market while feigning shock that Europe hasn't produced its own tech giants. Claiming "the EU had 20 years to build an equally successful product" is the geopolitical equivalent of a deeply dysfunctional 1950s household. For decades, the husband insisted he handle all the enterprise and security so he could…

Exactly! It's the same with the military dependency. America wanted a weak Europe, to be dependent on them so they would have geopolitical influence. They basically bought influence. They didn't want us to have nukes to defend ourselves from the Russians (the French are frowned upon and the British don't really have their own, they are beholden to the US). It also gave them a huge market for their products and servic…

everything you're pointing out is better explained by "Europe didn't want to spend the money, they'd rather let America spend". This was true right after WWII because Europe needed to dedicate money to rebuild their economies. It remained true as later Europe continued to rely on tariff regimes to protect inefficient home industry sectors, and financed increasingly expensive welfare state programs to appease voters.

The US was only in favor of Europe rebuilding after the war, and rightfully against the rest of it.

the US has never been anything but helpful to Europe, but Europeans need a boogeyman to draw attention away from their own failings. It is very important to the European psyche that they be seen as near perfect on every measure. Americans are much more comfortable with, and benefit from, self criticism.

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#495

Post by anjel »

drnick1 wrote: post #379
anjel wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

proxy emails are rejected more and more. Same with google tel numbers. The internet feels more and more like the garbage compactor scene in Star Wars.

How would the website know that it is a "proxy email?" I am using my own domain name and email server, and don't believe I ever received a rejection.

https://www.usercheck.com/guides/best-github-lists-for-dispo...

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#496

Post by ColinWright »

griffineyes wrote: post #293
ColinWright wrote: post #20

I used to have a LinkedIn account, a long time ago. To register I created an email address that was unique to LinkedIn, and pretty much unguessable ... certainly not amenable to a dictionary attack. I ended up deciding that I was getting no value from the account, and I heard unpleasant things about the company, so I deleted the account. Within hours I started to get spam to that unique email address. It would be int…

It’s definitely not a fluke. I was getting between 20 and 30 spam emails per day. Simply out of curiosity I deleted my linkedin account and the spam abated. After a week the spam reduced to a trickle and now after a few months I only get a few spam emails per week. Shortly after discovering that LinkedIn was the problem I deleted Indeed as well. Indeed has a fairly robust data deletion program.

This seems to be exactly the opposite of what I was describing.

While I had a LinkedIn account I was not receiving spam.

When I deleted my account, the spam started, and continues to this day.(+)

(+) Which is not a surprise ... once an email address has been leaked it gets onto lists and the spam will never end.

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#497

Post by throwaway2037 »

logifail wrote: post #481
throwaway2037 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.

> their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well This probably depends on your definition of "working well". In March 2025, after the last Federal elections were held in Germany (February 2025), but before the new parliament was constituted (within 30 days of the results?), the new governing coalition engineered a constitutional amendment which required a…

I added that last line as a honeypot, as part of my ongoing project on HN. No matter what I say positive about some country, culture, or institution, someone will pop into the conversation to say: "Yes, but what about this one incident. See, X is not so great after all." I think we need an equivalent of Brandolini's law for counterpoint of negativity in all HN discussions. It is as though people think they are disproving a maths proof by counterpoint. That's not the way the Real World of Human Society works. Weirdly, I see the same pattern on Wiki pages about living people. There is always a section of a bunch of random one-off events trying to discredit the person.

To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this.

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#498

Post by foxglacier »

register wrote: post #453
foxglacier wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is LinkedIn established in a place where Member State law applies? I guess not? You can't just go around pretending your law applies to people in other countries because none of the necessary institutions in those countries will respect your law.

The GDPR applies to the personal data of individuals in the European Union, regardless of where the data is processed. You can easily find the relevant law online.

It might say it applies but other countries have their own sovereignty and their residents aren't bound by every extra-territorial law written by every other country in the world.

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#499

Post by keepamovin »

the_nexus_guard wrote: post #473
keepamovin wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the concern for me. I thought the risk was obvious to everyone. Tho I've been tempted because it means I'll "have more interactions" or whatever LinkedIn pitches with, I didn't want to put a public signal out there with yes: "This is my real name, real job, real city" - to me it's like a pre-vetted database of marks for identity theft criminals or whatnot. You know? I thought everyone, at least in securit…

> I'm sure there's a cryptographic way for my identity to be proven to any who I chose to prove it to There is. The pattern is: generate a keypair locally, derive a DID (decentralized identifier) from the public key, and then selectively prove your identity to specific verifiers using digital signatures. No central authority ever holds your private key. The key difference from the LinkedIn model: you never hand biome…

I like this but want to marry it with real world, too. How would you do that? LinkedIn would verify biometrics and then sign your DID? ANd you'd use that biometric-attested ID to prove to who you want?

I guess from a psychological and UX point of view tho, large platforms like LI have lots of "trust" in people's eyes (accurate or not) and so if LI says "verified" we can trust that. It's not just a conspiracy for linkedin to intermediate themselves, it's human sociology. I would just like LI to remove the "self-dox pwn" from verified badges, attest but let me redact.

Re: I verified my LinkedIn identity. Here's what I handed over

#500

Post by m463 »

aylmao wrote: post #288

I'll note that Persona's CEO responded on LinkedIn [1] pointing out that: - No personal data processed is used for AI/model training. Data is exclusively used to confirm your identity. - All biometric personal data is deleted immediately after processing. - All other personal data processed is automatically deleted within 30 days. Data is retained during this period to help users troubleshoot. - The only subprocessor…

> what's happening in reality

that's the thing... excessively broad might not reflect reality TODAY but can be an opportunity in the future.

Post reply on HN