[HN Gopher] Find a person's profile across 350 social media sites
___________________________________________________________________
Find a person's profile across 350 social media sites
Author : hunvreus
Score : 339 points
Date : 2021-02-21 14:13 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| jimbob45 wrote:
| For anyone curious, I found the Python (first) method to be the
| easiest way to get this up and running. Also it hit a few false
| positives for my (not the one you see me using now) username.
|
| Edit: Also you can't Ctrl-C to kill it midway through running so
| don't fat-finger it if you don't want to waste 30 seconds waiting
| for it to finish.
| vmception wrote:
| Cycling usernames is one thing
|
| But remember to break your social graph on occasion with a new
| phone number and email address, and never sharing your number or
| stored contacts with the social media network. not that hard just
| something to be conscious of.
| pruski wrote:
| Storing contact list by any service should be illegal. You
| might try to not share your data, but if anyone has you on
| their contact list, it's out of your hands
| vmception wrote:
| Which is why you also dont tell the service your phone number
| or reuse an email address
| laurent92 wrote:
| I wonder if Google has a backdoor API which lets group
| people by backup email. If one always creates an account
| with the previous email as a backup, the link is east to
| make.
|
| That would be especially useful for censorship services
| across competitors: Although Google Facebook and Twitter
| compete, sharing the flagged accounts would allow
| recognizing the same user coming back with a different
| email address.
| vmception wrote:
| who said anything about backup email
|
| but sure? probably if you just alternate between a backup
| email tied to an email you use everywhere
| pruski wrote:
| New email per every service you want to use? It shouldn't
| be this complicated
| vmception wrote:
| no. new email for the same service to make a new account,
| even after deleting your old account.
|
| a lot of people dont know how or why they get the same
| suggestions of people and dont want that.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Sign In With Apple does exactly this -- generates a fake
| e-mail address for each account, so the data harvesters
| never get your real one.
| lmeyerov wrote:
| We help companies in areas like payments/account fraud where
| there are constant bots / rings / account takeover attacks, and
| this is both good advice... and _really_ hard.
|
| To cycle against entity resolution tools for a regular company,
| that'd mean things like full simultaneous reset of:
|
| * cookies
|
| * browser user agent
|
| * potentially sequence of sites/services you use
|
| * IP address/location
|
| * linked accounts
|
| * contact info
|
| Even one miss/overlap can void your efforts.
|
| The big sites have much more to work with than that, making it
| especially hard. Likewise, if a team takes a specific interest,
| there are even more correlations that can be done, e.g.,
| behavioral analytics.
| vmception wrote:
| Yes absolutely, fingerprinting an individual is easy and
| avoiding that as a user is hard.
|
| Social media sites (Facebook products) might drive ads based
| on fingerprinting but they aren't re-linking social graphs
| this way. Sticking with the reliability of shared phone
| numbers and emails (and people friending/inviting the same
| people and having the same name theyve seen before)
| ape4 wrote:
| Don't use the Facebook app
| fireattack wrote:
| Ok, since we're on this topic.. why can't we delete our old
| submissions/comments or the account itself on HN?
|
| HN probably is the only "social media" sites I use that you can't
| do that. This can't be good for users' privacy or "right to be
| forgotten".
| 19h wrote:
| IIRC you can just email the admins (check the FAQ) and they'll
| help you out.
| BlueGh0st wrote:
| >just email the admins
|
| If this were any other website, it'd be decried as a dark
| pattern
| alex_young wrote:
| > This project is "currently used by some law enforcement
| agencies in countries where resources are limited".
|
| Pretty troubling statement.
|
| Does this tool help repressive governments track people across
| accounts? That's sure what it looks like.
| narak wrote:
| Any openly available tool can be used by anyone for any
| purpose. The idea that we can pick and choose is ridiculous,
| and with the exception of rare cases, avoidance of building
| generally useful tools for the chance that bad actors will also
| use them is a losing proposition.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Any openly available tool can be used by anyone for any
| purpose. The idea that we can pick and choose is ridiculous_
|
| And yet there are hundreds of laws, conventions, and treaties
| regulating all kinds of weapons. The idea that humans can
| pick and choose what exists in their society is ridiculous.
| orasis wrote:
| Building a tool is an ethical choice. Technology has no
| inherent right to exist. This is a bad project.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Anyone who has capacity to harm you, luke governments,
| alreafy has tools and a fat budget.
| majkinetor wrote:
| This is invalid thinking.
|
| Bad actors can make such tool themselves (if they can't,
| they are not really that good) and have incentive to do
| that, so non existence will only slow them down. I don't
| care about analyzing other people for any purpose so I
| don't. Having this tool readily available lets me analyze
| myself and people I care about to protect them from bad
| actors and educate them in the process.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _This is invalid thinking._
|
| I'm not familiar with the phrase "invalid thinking." Can
| you elaborate on how a person's thoughts can be invalid?
| majkinetor wrote:
| You are being overly literal I guess, there is nothing to
| explain.
|
| Invalid line of thought sounds good ?
|
| Try DDG next time.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| The sentence was unnecessary to both your point and any
| argument in general. Why did you include it? Why are you
| defending it's inclusion? Why are you now saying "google
| it"?
| arkitaip wrote:
| Please keep in mind that some HNers are modeling their
| behavior after buggy machines and bad code and that this
| influences their thinking and language.
| narak wrote:
| logical coherence and fallacies far pre-date computers
| and code
| spoonjim wrote:
| It's a hamfisted attempt to assert the correctness of
| one's argument by fiat. It's the grown-up "are not / am
| too!"
| dleslie wrote:
| Technology has no rights; it is a logical abstraction
| describing the works of humans.
|
| I like to think that humans have an inherint right to
| engage in creative work that pleases them.
| 4eor0 wrote:
| Police sure seem pleased thumping skulls.
|
| Anything we can do to make it easier for them.
| dleslie wrote:
| Maybe your country should worry less about the technology
| and more about the people using it. You clearly have a
| personelle problem.
| 4eor0 wrote:
| Maybe we should police each other more, and technology
| less?
|
| But who is making the technology?
|
| Circles. Circles everywhere.
|
| Perhaps you should not anthropomorphize technology.
| dleslie wrote:
| I am explicitly _not_ anthropromorphizing technology; I
| argued it is a logical abstraction with no rights.
| williesleg wrote:
| Progressives worldwide use this tool.
| pca006132 wrote:
| But this is not a problem with the tool, this is a problem with
| those platforms. Even if this tool is not published, bad actors
| can still make their own tools.
|
| I think we should rather demand the platforms to enforce better
| measures against this kind of usage, rather than blaming this
| tool.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| While I don't disagree with the latter statement, perhaps we
| shouldn't be giving tools to bad actors in a silver plate or
| perhaps a git repo.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _this is not a problem with the tool, this is a problem with
| those platforms._
|
| It's not the missile that's the problem, it's the guy who
| launches the missile.
|
| Why not both?
| harryf wrote:
| Perfect example was the youtube-dl. Making an app to
| download videos from YouTube is relatively trivial for most
| semi-experienced developers but that doesn't mean I want to
| invest the time doing it, plus the effort of keeping it up
| to date every time YouTube changes something. So youtube-dl
| is enabling me and less technical people to download
| content from YouTube, and it's "going away" for a short
| time caused an outcry.
|
| So there's a difference between "this is possible" and
| "this is a tool that makes it really easy"
| dleslie wrote:
| Depends on what you mean by missile. One worth dozens of
| millions of USD and produced largely to prop-up a state
| economy tends to have different ethical considerations
| versus an adhoc assemblage of propane tanks and plumbing
| pipes produced to fight over the neighbourhood in which it
| was made.
| samstave wrote:
| You know what would be a great addition to this tool: A
| transparency panel/dashboard that shows any state
| organizations or LEO systems that are using it.
|
| List out all the IPs and countries that are state IPs using
| it.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| The tool is running locally, how are you going to collect
| the IPs?
| samstave wrote:
| I was thinking a modification such that the system will
| report where its run from and if the reported IP is
| recognized as a government agency, display it - else drop
| it.
| SahAssar wrote:
| So you want to add phone home functionality? And why
| wouldn't those agencies just fork it and remove the phone
| home bits or firewall them?
| lmz wrote:
| Yup. Not sure how this is different from any of the security
| tools / exploits used to break into networks.
| uh_uh wrote:
| Maybe we should do both.
|
| I take an issue with the argument that bad actors can make
| their own tools. Bad actors can also build their own nuclear
| weapons, genetically engineer their own deadly diseases but
| there's certainly value in not making this any easier. If you
| take the time, money and effort away from bad actors by
| forcing them to reinvent the wheel, that's a good thing.
|
| Granted, this logic can't be viably applied to most things,
| but there are projects where you can assume that most of the
| use-cases will be shady.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Tools like this are trivial to make and it's trivial to do
| it manually using Google. I don't see any point in getting
| angry about the existence of tools like that, as it's
| beyond anyone's power to stop people from doxxing each
| other.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I did something similar to this for a hackathon in
| university. Obviously not as sophisticated as this, but
| the concept is trivial. If you know enough about the
| command line to install it, you can build it.
| cgriswald wrote:
| > Granted, this logic can't be viably applied to most
| things,...
|
| This specific thing, for example.
|
| > ... but there are projects where you can assume that most
| of the use-cases will be shady.
|
| An assumption is a poor basis for an argument. Even in the
| case where the assumption turns out to be correct, I don't
| buy this line of reasoning, because it would apply
| generally to security tools. Such reasoning also makes it
| far easier to attack things even where the assumption is
| known to be wrong ( _e.g._ bittorrent).
| VRay wrote:
| Bad actors can't make nuclear or biological weapons unless
| they have incredible amounts of resources
|
| Bad actors with a $150 laptop out of a dumpster and a free
| wifi connection CAN make cyberstalking tools in their spare
| time
| violetgarden wrote:
| Exactly! There's a totally different bar to entry. Look
| at North Korea. I don't think they rank highly as a
| concern with traditional kinetic warfare, but they have
| made themselves a major security concern even with scant
| resources because the bar to entry with cyber warfare is
| just that much lower.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's silly. Cops are allowed to use their eyes. These
| platforms are the billboards they look at.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| You know how sometimes people ask on HN 'how can I use software
| to make world better?', well, you just asked the opposite
| question.
|
| Don't make shit like this. I could do it too, but I'm not gonna.
| postalrat wrote:
| I'm sure politely asking people not to do something that
| benefits them will surely work.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Shame has its own way.
| violetgarden wrote:
| I'm surprised by the backlash regarding this tool. Well, I guess
| surprised is the wrong word. I get that it is creepy. There are
| lots of websites that do this very thing like whatsmyname.app.
|
| I personally like running my username through tools like this and
| aggregating my digital presence. When I was younger, I signed up
| for lots of sites that were the cool, new thing. Checking myself
| years later, I am shocked by the wide berth I left. Fitness
| accounts. Accounts from that time I was getting into studying
| chess. I'm the type of person who is always on to the next hobby.
| I go 100% in on something, then pop to the next thing. It was a
| big wake up call to me looking back seeing how much presence I
| left. Many accounts are so old I can't even get into them anymore
| to clean up what's out there. Tools like this can be used for
| good.
|
| That said, I totally understand the cyber stalking/bullying
| concerns. I am also astounded by the cyber sleuth types. In the
| documentary, Don't F* with Cats, people spent 100s of hours
| carefully walking through streets in Google Maps to match a
| location to a photo they had of a guy who killed a cat on
| YouTube. It seems to me where there's a will, there's a way. It's
| scary, and unfortunately a lot of tools we can use to protect
| ourselves are the same tools that can be used against us. Look at
| cyber security in general. A black hat and a white hat are people
| with the same skills, but ethics draw a line between them.
| hammock wrote:
| Forgive me for being so dumb despite being on this website for
| so long. How do I download and install this program from github
| (macbook, no dev tools or terminal or anything on my computer)?
| anonu wrote:
| You're going to need to get comfortable in the terminal if
| you want to run this code. You'll need python, git, and
| nodejs for starters
| smusamashah wrote:
| whatsmyname.app is a nice tool. I didn't even remember most of
| these accounts. Can get rid of them if I want now.
| Debug_Overload wrote:
| Tools like this also make me uncomfortable and I said as much
| last time an issue like this was discussed [1].
|
| But I don't think the "it can be abused" argument is
| compelling. Most of the tools we have today can _and_ have been
| abused. As you point out, we know bad actors use infosec tools
| and run the same POCs that researchers produce when they find
| new exploits and vulnerabilities (after disclosure); they check
| the same CVEs and read the same papers. But this information
| has to be released and these tools have to be out in the open.
| Security through obscurity is a disaster.
|
| Besides the other intended goals of these tools, I am hoping
| they will raise awareness and get many people to realize how
| easy it is to identify and deanonymize them online.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26082504
| riedel wrote:
| I somehow agree that there is no good strategy against "dual
| use" . However, why not simply put usage terms in the
| licence. The copyright owner chooses actively what uses they
| allow. IMHO it would be an ethically good thing to at least
| try to at least legally disallow "abuse": Authors of software
| need to claim more responsibilty and at least actively
| reflect on potential uses of their software.
| cwwc wrote:
| Also... helps find where you're visible, then eliminate it.
| sweetheart wrote:
| Just because you _can_ do something, doesn't mean you should.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Another reason to stop using social media.
|
| Everything you've ever posted can be used against you. Plus your
| more likely to make friends / meet partners in this place called
| real life.
| ehwhyreally wrote:
| so a ripoff of sherlock?
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| Hmmm...
|
| I like this idea!
|
| It's sort of like a "social media site" (if the broadest possible
| definition of one is permitted!) that "aggregates all other
| social media sites"... (how meta!)...
|
| But, I like this idea a lot!
|
| If I were creating such a thing -- I'd add the ability for a
| person (once their identity is verified) to remove their results
| from one or more social media sites.
|
| That is, standard opt-in and opt-out.
|
| This would permit the shown functionalities for people that
| desire such functionalities, while also preserving opt-out, aka,
| "the right to be forgotten" -- for other people that desired
| that, specifically...
| MauroIksem wrote:
| I'm so sick of morons open sourcing abuse tools under the guise
| of "helping". This tool will be misused to abuse and harass more
| than anything else. Making these tools available to masses is
| dangerous.
| draw_down wrote:
| Huh, thought you guys loved open source
| zodiakzz wrote:
| How would it be any better if it was a paid product? A
| determined bully can still buy it.
| fireattack wrote:
| To prevent non-determined ones.
| syoc wrote:
| What are "abuse tools"? Trying to suppress knowledge is never
| the answer. That would mean that only those in the know can
| either protect themselves or exploit others.
|
| The "never put information about yourself on the internet"
| mantra from before social media needs a comeback and it will
| not happen if no one shines a light on how easy it is to track
| people online.
| picardythird wrote:
| > Trying to suppress knowledge is never the answer
|
| Right, if only cutting edge nuclear/bio/chemical/cyber
| technology was a github repo away.
| sweetheart wrote:
| Okay, but assuming thats true, there are ways to make it
| clear to someone how easy it is to track them online without
| enabling people to actually do that tracking themselves so
| easily.
| mdoms wrote:
| So if I put up a website at doxsyoc.com with your email
| address, phone numbers, home address, credit card details,
| social security number, daily schedule, bank statements and
| employment information you would presumably not try to have
| it removed because "Trying to suppress knowledge is never the
| answer".
| 40four wrote:
| I think you chose a weak interpretation of what they said
| to make your point. I don't think that's what they meant.
|
| We're talking about a tool here that attempts to aggregate
| all of a particular person's social medial accounts. Social
| media is public. Everyone knows this, your are saying
| things and posting things with the expectation that
| everyone will be able to see them.
|
| What you said is something totally different. Doxing
| someone's private information is heinous. Nobody is arguing
| _that_ is okay. I think the parent comment made a good
| point.
|
| If tech can allow a tool like this to be possible, I think
| it is arguably better that everyone have access to it,
| instead of just bad actors keeping it to themselves.
| itronitron wrote:
| There are other technological fields in which capable tech
| has been kept out of commonly available products in order to
| prevent people from abusing it.
|
| For whatever reason, techies that are in the information
| discovery space can't help themselves from showing off how
| clever they are despite there being very real security risks
| to random bystanders.
| [deleted]
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| I think that anyone developing a social media app for the 2020s
| will need to make a conscious decision to not let users pick
| their own unique identifiers. You can't expect users to protect
| themselves, because you don't know what dangers might exist in
| the future for them that do not exist today.
|
| The other thing you can do is not allow your API to iterate over
| the set of all users by user-set identifier. It's an extreme flaw
| of the telephone numbering system. You would think by the 2020s
| we'd have learned to use a unique UUID designation for every user
| for any public facing APIs. If users want to link to it on their
| public pages, that would be on them.
| codetrotter wrote:
| I think that the idea of not allowing users to pick their own
| identifiers is not compatible with how a lot of people use
| social media.
|
| It's a heck of a lot easier for me to tell my GitHub username
| to someone, than it would be to tell them a random UUID like
| 3ffdf0d2-b9a5-4fff-9f38-75afae67dbea.
|
| Even a shorter random-looking username like the one that you
| have chosen as your HN username, is difficult to relate to for
| me and I suspect for a lot of people.
|
| And even if you made a human readable version that would hand
| out usernames like "magnificentwalrus", it would be generating
| usernames that most users weren't identifying with. As much as
| I like walruses I don't have a personal connection to them, and
| any other random name is likely to fare the same. Sure you
| could let users generate names until they come across one that
| they do like, but mostly I think that would be a lot of hassle.
| And there is no guarantee for how long it takes before you find
| a good name that way. Perhaps even never, as adjective + noun
| or whatever else the site uses as rule for generating names
| might not be a rule that the user likes.
|
| Names matter a lot to a lot of people.
|
| Aside from this I think it's also only a matter of time before
| similar services to the one in the OP show up but where instead
| of trying to cross-reference usernames it would work similar to
| Google Reverse Image Search, and would be able to link accounts
| across different social media platforms based on the facial
| features in the photos and/or videos that people post, even
| when the images and videos are not the same ones but are
| depicting the same person.
| jiofih wrote:
| You're assuming that 1) the value of a username or URL is
| higher than the value of privacy 2) people use those for
| discovery. I'm sure 99% of social media connections happen
| via recommendation algorithms, friends-of-friends or search
| by name (not username), never directly typing a username or
| profile url.
| bt1a wrote:
| You're sure about that? I don't think so. There's tons of
| connections made from people transferring short, human-
| readable handles. Think business cards, word of mouth. e.g.
| I'm at (@) handle. That's much easier to lookup as opposed
| to searching for someone's name. It may even be a business
| that's not tied to the individual's name.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> I think that anyone developing a social media app for the
| 2020s will need to make a conscious decision to not let users
| pick their own unique identifiers._
|
| Completely agreed. If I were to ever set up a forum, I'd find
| whatever "adjective-adjective-noun" generator that Gfycat uses
| to generate their URLs and present new users with a list of 100
| of these to choose from.
| laurent92 wrote:
| All photos of the same mobile phone certainly have a unique
| fingerprint. Not only the EXIF, also the dead pixels and the
| unique pattern of low intensity pixels.
|
| If you want to protect user privacy, a unique identifier is not
| enough. If they posted a gay profile somewhere, a professional
| profile somewhere else, they will be forever linked.
| tonymet wrote:
| Userids are only one of thousands of signals that can identify
| accounts
| hammock wrote:
| Forgive me for being so dumb despite being on this website for so
| long. How do I download and install this program from github
| (macbook, no dev tools or terminal or anything on my computer)?
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| 1. Install docker desktop
|
| 2. Download the zip file from the repo and unzip
|
| 3. Open a terminal windows and cd to the folder containing the
| README
|
| 4. Type docker-compose up
|
| (Not tested. Just based on what's in the repo.)
| hammock wrote:
| Thank you
| A12-B wrote:
| I am really glad i don't have public social media
| woutr_be wrote:
| Ironically, this tool also includes HN.
| "url": "https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id={username}",
| volume wrote:
| wait, that would be coincidence. It would be ironic if it
| were a social media site for privacy experts.
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| There is no 21st century option to refuse public social media.
| As observed with Clearview AI, if you end up in someone's photo
| on a social media website you will be inadvertently added to a
| social and location-based graph. I believe Facebook does this
| internally, so if you have any friends or relatives using
| Facebook who uploads a picture of you, no matter how old, your
| social graph is present there.
|
| And try as you may, so long as you have a phone number you will
| end up in someone's harvested contacts list.
| bredren wrote:
| This is called a "shadow" profile, I think.
| bigodbiel wrote:
| the infamous shadow profiles that Zuckerberg tried to "deny"
| during congressional hearing
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16813659
| fortran77 wrote:
| And yet, here you are.
| volume wrote:
| ...because any site with a discussion thread is social media.
| IRC and usenet are social media.
|
| maybe email is social media?
| postalrat wrote:
| Yea. Some mailing lists are a form of social media. Many of
| them are public.
|
| IRC and twitch would be too.
| A12-B wrote:
| When I said public i meant with my face and name.
| [deleted]
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| I wonder how this compares to FullContact, a company built on
| doing this very thing.
| anticensor wrote:
| The difference is social-analyzer is free and open source.
| alangibson wrote:
| There are 350 social media sites?
| bombcar wrote:
| It looks like "anything with a username where you can do
| something" is counted as a social media site.
| Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL wrote:
| Regarding the criticism: How is it different from any pentesting
| tool, portscanner, meta search engine, shodan.io (which you could
| use to try to find unprotected babycams and whatnot), et cetera,
| on principle? I know it's creepy, but obviously this is
| portraying a serious and widespread flaw in how we treat privacy
| on the net, and for that flaw to be fixed, proclaiming the tool
| as evil doesn't do it, and actually is counter productive?
| sriram_sun wrote:
| I want one like this, but one that goes out and deletes my
| account from the sites I specify.
| naringas wrote:
| this is the kind of tool that I assumen every intelligence agency
| in the world already has implemented as a service for their
| 'agents'
| williesleg wrote:
| Brilliant! I'm gonna find me a girlfriend for sure now!
| 0df8dkdf wrote:
| It is projects like this makes people dont' want to be on any
| public social media. It is creepy.
| postalrat wrote:
| Creepy like watching open heart surgery?
| itronitron wrote:
| no, it's creepy like finding people that are scheduled for
| open heart surgery
| samstave wrote:
| It would be wonderful if this could be used to DELETE my account
| across any of these sites
| jsilence wrote:
| Would love to have a tool that monitors hashtags over 300+ SM
| sites.
|
| Any recommendation?
| cirno wrote:
| > API, CLI & Web App for analyzing & finding a person's profile
| across +300 social media websites
|
| > could help in investigating profiles related to suspicious or
| malicious activities such as cyberbullying, cybergrooming,
| cyberstalking, and spreading misinformation.
|
| It will _much_ more likely be used to _aid_ cyberbullying and
| cyberstalking. Those types love digging for more information by
| finding their targets ' profiles on other social media sites.
|
| Those types of trolls are much more adept at using randomized
| usernames, disposable e-mail addresses, and VPN clients because
| they know what they're doing is potentially illegal.
| majkinetor wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| BUT, this may bring awareness to regular folks. You can also
| use it to remove your own stuff from said networks because
| people do not catalogue their online activity and it can be
| hard to remove your digital footprint.
| tantalor wrote:
| I'd pay for a service that would do this,
|
| 1. Find my digital footprints on social media
|
| 2. Compare that to my desired level of public activity, e.g.,
| do not share photos of me
|
| 3. Provide tools to delete, scrub, send takedowns, etc.
| fossuser wrote:
| There's privacy duck and delete me, but they're mostly
| focused on the scammier public data collection sites where
| it's harder to remove your information.
| rolph wrote:
| 4. template an online persona, and cede it across the web,
| create footprints use SEO type methods to promote a desired
| public image.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| 4. Hope they don't keep their own backup copies for later
| use :-P
| ImprovedSilence wrote:
| Yup, I'm more curious to find out what I can find out about
| myself more than anything else.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Lol, exactly. This is a doxxing tool, who do you think is going
| to use that?
| koolba wrote:
| Targeted enterprise sales^W^Wspam?
| 1337shadow wrote:
| You can use it to find your own forgotten stuff, or on third
| parties for which you have approval (ie. security gig).
|
| It is not the first tool in that spirit, there's a lot more
| available in Kali Linux for example, including Maltego.
| kube-system wrote:
| People who dox are doing to do it anyway. This tool will make
| it really easy for people to find holes in their own (or
| their organizations) presence.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Surely you don't expect ordinary people to "find holes in
| their [online] presence" using this tool...
|
| This tool is recipe for stalking.
| EduardoBautista wrote:
| Honestly, searching for myself was the first thing that
| came to mind when I saw this. Although I might not be an
| "ordinary" person.
| kortilla wrote:
| People who have something to be ostracized over do this
| all of the time. This tool is great for someone trying to
| hide something about their identity (e.g. being gay).
| jh86 wrote:
| Would you also consider Google search a recipe for
| stalking? It provides a larger set of results, but you
| can easily narrow down your results to social media
| sites...
|
| It's a tool, much like a knife is a tool. They can be
| used for good or bad. The tool is indifferent.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Cool.
|
| Won't need it for me, though. Just Google "ChrisMarshallNY."
|
| Most of them are placeholders, though. This is really where I
| participate. I do little bit on Facebook, and almost nothing on
| Twitter.
| Vosporos wrote:
| What the fuck
| mtnGoat wrote:
| I'm not a fan. Kinda creepy.
| BannedQuick wrote:
| Wait until you find out how HackerNews harvests your data, uses
| services that use data lakes of bulk collection to confirm your
| identity, and sell what you generate without your permission.
| aww_dang wrote:
| I'm still waiting to find out about that. Maybe you'd be kind
| enough to elaborate.
| BannedQuick wrote:
| > Online Tracking and Do Not Track Signals: We and our
| third party service providers may use cookies or other
| tracking technologies to collect information about your
| browsing activities over time and across different websites
| following your use of the Site. Our Site currently does not
| respond to "Do Not Track" ("DNT") signals and operates as
| described in this Privacy Policy whether or not a DNT
| signal is received. If we do respond to DNT signals in the
| future, we will update this Privacy Policy to describe how
| we do so.
|
| https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
| [deleted]
| babooska wrote:
| Why is it creepy?
| loveistheanswer wrote:
| Some people find stalking, and tools which could enable
| stalking to be undesireable.
| mtnGoat wrote:
| If you don't know at this point, I can't explain it to you.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| It can get much creepier. It's possible to reverse image search
| a person's profile picture from one site to find out where else
| they have profiles - given that they reuse their profile
| picture - which many do.
| psyc wrote:
| I've been wondering when we'll see a service that lets you
| upload a headshot from the company directory or Facebook, and
| returns every nude of that person that ever found its way
| onto the internet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-21 23:01 UTC)