4 ms·

Worst idea ever. I have never and will never give LinkedIn (or similar platforms) my work email address. I strictly separate work from personal stuff. Work stu

Worst idea ever. I have never and will never give LinkedIn (or similar platforms) my work email address. I strictly separate work from personal stuff. Work stuff gets my work email. Personal stuff gets my personal email. Traveling for work and need to book a hotel? Work email. Apple Id for work laptop? Work email. New account per employer. Gets disassociated and closed before I hand in my laptop. Electronic pay slips? Personal email. Health insurance account? Personal email. Apple Id for personal laptop? Personal email. There are things I need or want access to without being dependent on my employer. LinkedIn has nothing to do with my work. It's personal. It's about me. I list information about me. It's like a CV. No I should not have to update my CV through my work email account where my employer has access to information they shouldn't and where I can't update it if I no longer work there.

derefr 4y ago
> No I should not have to update my CV through my work email account That (changing your account to use your work email for sign-in) is not what they're suggesting; they're suggesting binding the email address as secondary information to your account (by sending it a magic-link email you have to click) — like a Keybase verification that you "own" a profile.
- tedunangst 4y ago
  And do I trust them to silo this information? Similar companies like Facebook and Twitter are a solid 0% in using info provided for verification only for verification purposes.
  - derefr 4y ago
    You rhetorical question is... whether you should trust a company that already has both your full name, and a list of companies you've worked for (because you gave them both of those things to enable them to publicly display them to people searching for you)... with the information of what your corporate email address is? They already know your corporate email address. They — and anyone else who sees the public profile they display for you(!) — has all the information required to deduce it. (And privately, they have all the info required to not even have to brute-force it — i.e. they already know some of your coworkers' corporate email addresses, and so the format of the username-part of yours.) The only thing they don't know, is whether you — the person who claims to have worked for company X, but might not actually — can access that email address. Is there something scary about them having that information, over-and-above what's scary about them being able to do what they can do with the information you explicitly did choose to give them?
    - tedunangst 4y ago
      I don't want them emailing me job offers at work, and I also don't want them emailing me "you haven't responded to the job offer we sent to your other address" either, and I have zero faith that won't happen.
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  Exactly my point. I should not require current access to a work email account just to update my CV to show that I worked somewhere. Or for how long I worked there (like that suggestion to "re-verify" periodically). I don't update my LinkedIn right away for example when I change jobs. I usually wait about a year until I put the new employer. Why would I accept getting forced, as one of the first actions at my new employer, to list where I work?
  - derefr 4y ago
    Showing that you worked somewhere and showing that you are working somewhere are two different things. A work email can be used to show that you are working somewhere. Proving that you did work somewhere (and for how long) would require... I don't know, an income tax statement? Like banks ask for — "proof of income." IMHO, of the two options, the email is the more convenient and less invasive one — at the expense of not always being reachable by the time you need it.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      What if the place has no canonical email domain for its employees? Or if they don't all receive them? Or if many employees are working there as contractors and not receiving emails? The more I think about it, the more corner cases I see that make this problematic.
      - derefr 4y ago
        Like I said, it would be a pure optimization over a more rigorous proof-of-identity + proof-of-income path. You can always allow the user just fall back to that more-rigorous path if they don't have such a verifiable address.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Linkedin will never require proof of income. That's much more intrusive. So no it's not an optimization over something that simply never will occur. I think you may just have to accept that if you want to verify an employee, you'll need to call their previous employers. This is the way it's always been done.
pests 4y ago
No one said you had to login with the work email. It could just be a step when you change current employer to a big company, a one time verification. You would still use your personal for login and account control.
- tharkun__ 4y ago
  You may want to read the rest of the replies. In particular that is already mentioned and answered here on why that is not OK: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33280929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33280929

derefr 4y ago

> No I should not have to update my CV through my work email account That (changing your account to use your work email for sign-in) is not what they're suggesting; they're suggesting binding the email address as secondary information to your account (by sending it a magic-link email you have to click) — like a Keybase verification that you "own" a profile.

tedunangst 4y ago
And do I trust them to silo this information? Similar companies like Facebook and Twitter are a solid 0% in using info provided for verification only for verification purposes.
- derefr 4y ago
  You rhetorical question is... whether you should trust a company that already has both your full name, and a list of companies you've worked for (because you gave them both of those things to enable them to publicly display them to people searching for you)... with the information of what your corporate email address is? They already know your corporate email address. They — and anyone else who sees the public profile they display for you(!) — has all the information required to deduce it. (And privately, they have all the info required to not even have to brute-force it — i.e. they already know some of your coworkers' corporate email addresses, and so the format of the username-part of yours.) The only thing they don't know, is whether you — the person who claims to have worked for company X, but might not actually — can access that email address. Is there something scary about them having that information, over-and-above what's scary about them being able to do what they can do with the information you explicitly did choose to give them?
  - tedunangst 4y ago
    I don't want them emailing me job offers at work, and I also don't want them emailing me "you haven't responded to the job offer we sent to your other address" either, and I have zero faith that won't happen.
tharkun__ 4y ago
Exactly my point. I should not require current access to a work email account just to update my CV to show that I worked somewhere. Or for how long I worked there (like that suggestion to "re-verify" periodically). I don't update my LinkedIn right away for example when I change jobs. I usually wait about a year until I put the new employer. Why would I accept getting forced, as one of the first actions at my new employer, to list where I work?
- derefr 4y ago
  Showing that you worked somewhere and showing that you are working somewhere are two different things. A work email can be used to show that you are working somewhere. Proving that you did work somewhere (and for how long) would require... I don't know, an income tax statement? Like banks ask for — "proof of income." IMHO, of the two options, the email is the more convenient and less invasive one — at the expense of not always being reachable by the time you need it.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    What if the place has no canonical email domain for its employees? Or if they don't all receive them? Or if many employees are working there as contractors and not receiving emails? The more I think about it, the more corner cases I see that make this problematic.
    - derefr 4y ago
      Like I said, it would be a pure optimization over a more rigorous proof-of-identity + proof-of-income path. You can always allow the user just fall back to that more-rigorous path if they don't have such a verifiable address.
      - CogitoCogito 4y ago
        Linkedin will never require proof of income. That's much more intrusive. So no it's not an optimization over something that simply never will occur. I think you may just have to accept that if you want to verify an employee, you'll need to call their previous employers. This is the way it's always been done.

pests 4y ago

No one said you had to login with the work email. It could just be a step when you change current employer to a big company, a one time verification. You would still use your personal for login and account control.

tharkun__ 4y ago
You may want to read the rest of the replies. In particular that is already mentioned and answered here on why that is not OK: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33280929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33280929