4 ms·
It is great that he is a well respected researcher, but I will question him when he implies a site is a phishing site when it quite clearly isn't (I'm sorry, if
by Kylekramer 15y ago
It is great that he is a well respected researcher, but I will question him when he implies a site is a phishing site when it quite clearly isn't (I'm sorry, if Google employees really wanted GV numbers/PINs and Gmail addresses, they wouldn't start posting a Google Doc in support forums to get them [1]) on the basis of a "Twitter consensus". I just prefer my researchers to do some actual research, not go off half baked in a public forum.
1: Not to mention that the form in question has been used successfully for its intended purpose many times. http://smarterware.org/6437/how-to-transfer-google-voice-to-your-google-apps-account http://smarterware.org/6437/how-to-transfer-google-voice-to-...
- kylemaxwell 15y agoThat may be, but the issue in that case has nothing to do with the specific forum used for the discussion.
- Kylekramer 15y agoWhy not? In this case, a Twitter consensus is not near sufficient evidence for the claim (especially once you see the actual consensus of 6 guys, one of whom disagrees and none of whom seem to be particularly well regarded researchers: http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/spreads7.png http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/spreads7.png) While it is nice to claim all forums are equal, it just is not true. If he said a group of experts agreed and then linked to their tweets, I wouldn't cry foul. But just claiming a Twitter consensus is like me interviewing the first five people I saw in Times Square and calling it a day.
- kylemaxwell 15y agoI guess I'm drawing the distinction here between venue and participants, much like presentation and content.