Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by djrogers 3532 days ago
Listen - I'm not above accusing LinkedIn of horrible things, but here we are basically taking the word of a call center rep over what we (should) know to be technical limitations of the platform in question.

One of 3 things seems to be possible here:

1) The rep is right and gmail has an XSS vulnerability that LinkedIn is using

2) LinkedIn and Google are in bed and sharing this information based on some fingerprint-foo

3) This guy or his other contacts somehow at some point succumbed to LinkedIn trickery and gave access to his gmail account.

Don't know about you, but #3 seems most likely to me...
1 comments
geezerjay 3531 days ago
It seems to me that you're trying to turn the tables on the subject and pretend that linkedin's contact list abuse is, somehow or for any reason, instead an issue regarding a "cal center rep", which no one likes.

How about focusing on the problem instead of pulling a bait-and-switch?

The fact is linkedin tries incessantly to import contact lists from their users, sometimes in the clear and sometimes through shady dark-patterns.

Everyone who ever used linkedin is well aware of that.

Other social network services also abuse that angle, like facebook.

So, why exactly are you trying to pull the proverbial wool over everyone's eyes by trying to make believe that this issue is about an ill-reputed "call center rep" instead of the clamorous privacy abuse that social network services try to force on their users repeatedly?

link
djrogers 3531 days ago
I'm trying to focus on he content of the article and not the hundreds of other blog posts about scummy LI behavior. The linked post has nothing to do with dark patterns, which are crappy and LI is clearly guilty of.

I'm not sure what exactly you feel I'm trying to lie about here - my post stated I think that LI conned this guy out of his contacts instead of utilizing some heretofore unknown technology to steal them from a separate browser window.

link
geezerjay 3531 days ago
> I'm trying to focus on he content of the article

If you actually had any intention on focusing on the content, you wouldn't had tried to turn the tables with a blatant ad-hominem while turning a blind eye to the issue.

link