3 ms·

I would mind and care. The Daily Mail is a sleeze journal. My guess is half the value would be unfettered access to email accounts. They would dig through al

I would mind and care. The Daily Mail is a sleeze journal. My guess is half the value would be unfettered access to email accounts. They would dig through all sorts of emails to find juicy news stories and photos. This is not a reputable or ethical journal -- they make up stories, publish disghusting articles and know no bounds.

DanBC 11y ago
To support this point: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/14/dailymail-hacked-off-campaign http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/14/dail... The Daily Mail are scum and it's disappointing that they're not in the HN banned sites list.
- gadders 11y ago
  I don't think Hacked Off are a great decider of who is scum or not. The campaign is a Guardian proxy to protect rich and powerful celebrities and politicians from press investigations.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    But that link isn't Hacked Off's subjective opinion - it's an objective list of breaches of the Editor's code of practice published by the Press Complaints Commission.
Kequc 11y ago
Why wouldn't daily mail just offer their own email service @dailymail.com? Surely that would be less expensive. I doubt there would be too much juicy news flowing through yahoo's email server. Then again as you say, Daily Mail is pretty much a tabloid. I think grabbing specifics from personal email might be a little extreme. They might, on the other hand, monitor trends to see what people are talking about in general. That I might believe.
- TrickedOut 11y ago
  Because yahoo mail offers a 20year treasure trove of email whereas a new email service would offer no such history. I, like many, started my first email account on Yahoo. It still lives, even though most current usage has migrated to gmail. Also, only a fool would use @dailymail as their primary account knowing the history of the paper's privacy violations.
- yrro 11y ago
  > I think grabbing specifics from personal email might be a little extreme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki... The Daily Mail are a separate organization but I would not trust them to get up to exactly the same tricks.

DanBC 11y ago

To support this point: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/14/dailymail-hacked-off-campaign http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/14/dail... The Daily Mail are scum and it's disappointing that they're not in the HN banned sites list.

gadders 11y ago
I don't think Hacked Off are a great decider of who is scum or not. The campaign is a Guardian proxy to protect rich and powerful celebrities and politicians from press investigations.
- DanBC 11y ago
  But that link isn't Hacked Off's subjective opinion - it's an objective list of breaches of the Editor's code of practice published by the Press Complaints Commission.

Kequc 11y ago

Why wouldn't daily mail just offer their own email service @dailymail.com? Surely that would be less expensive. I doubt there would be too much juicy news flowing through yahoo's email server. Then again as you say, Daily Mail is pretty much a tabloid. I think grabbing specifics from personal email might be a little extreme. They might, on the other hand, monitor trends to see what people are talking about in general. That I might believe.

TrickedOut 11y ago
Because yahoo mail offers a 20year treasure trove of email whereas a new email service would offer no such history. I, like many, started my first email account on Yahoo. It still lives, even though most current usage has migrated to gmail. Also, only a fool would use @dailymail as their primary account knowing the history of the paper's privacy violations.
yrro 11y ago
> I think grabbing specifics from personal email might be a little extreme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki... The Daily Mail are a separate organization but I would not trust them to get up to exactly the same tricks.