5 ms·

The really sick twist is that I think if you don't have an account at all, you're even more vulnerable to someone making a fake one for you. If you have a real

The really sick twist is that I think if you don't have an account at all, you're even more vulnerable to someone making a fake one for you. If you have a real account and pay for verification, and someone else has a fake one, it's easy to see that one is "verified" and one isn't. If you don't have an account and the only ones on the site are fake ones claiming to you... seems you're screwed? In the extra-crazy future you will be able to pay to not have an account but still have them take down fakes, maybe?

petre 4y ago
Can't you just threaten to sue if they don't delete it? In the EU one could probably use the GDPR to lawfully take down a fake account. In France there's a right to one's image law that can also be used.
Bluecobra 4y ago
It’s not just social media either. I remember reading something a few years ago recommending that you create an IRS online account to prevent someone else from fraudulently creating one on your behalf to steal tax returns. :/
phs318u 4y ago
Defensive account squatting. It's a thing. Was talking to a lawyer recently (making a will; I'm old), and he saw my email address was firstname@lastname.net (my lastname is almost globally unique), and he asked if I had bought up "the rest" i.e. lastname.com, .org, .com.au, .org.au, .net.au, .id. I told him my paranoia had met it's match in my laziness, and he looked at me like I was an idiot about to have his identity stolen.
- bugbuddy 4y ago
  The difference is that there can only be one owner of JohnSmith.com in the ICANN WHOIS database but there can be millions of John Smith on META platforms.
  - oarsinsync 4y ago
    But if there’s a john@smith.net, there can also be a john@smith.com, john@smith.org, john@smith.app, john@smith.us, etc
    - bugbuddy 4y ago
      But most people would not be typing john@smith.net or any of the variants you mentioned into their browser address. My point still stands that domain names have a completely different set of constraints.
  - phs318u 4y ago
    Yes, I accept that. I'm personally lucky that all the people alive with my surname in the world are related at the great-grandparent level. There's less than a handful with my firstname. I briefly looked into trademarking my personal name (legal to do in Australia) but its cost prohibitive (vs verifying for multiple online platforms). I even thought briefly about legally changing my name to include a new middle-name that was my PGP short key id. But Australia does not permit the use of numeric symbols in names. (Though I guess you could shift the hex string by 10 so 0-F maps to A-P. That wouldn't break the rules.)
    - ml_basics 4y ago
      Interesting idea RE PGP key as middle name... just it would suck to then later on lose access to your private key!
      - hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
        He can change his middle name again. It's not like the government will require him to produce the private key to do so
    - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
      Or generate a vanity key id?
    - 4y ago
- cube00 4y ago
  PSA: Having a will is not just if you are old. Every one should have one and if your affairs are straight forward you may be able to it yourself with a kit.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    Can you elaborate? Why should everyone have a will? In particular, why should a kidless and unmarried person have a will?
    - bdsa 4y ago
      I presume it makes things simpler for your next of kin, whoever that may be (i.e. not a child/spouse, but a parent, sibling etc.)
    - noirscape 4y ago
      Makes things easier for when you're gone. You'll probably have some next of kin, even if you're on bad terms with them. If you die without a will, the state ends up determining what happens with your possessions. That usually means that they'll go down a list of relatives and ask them "hey, this person died, do you want to inherit their belongings". If they find absolutely nobody (this happens a lot with people that die with a lot of debt, since you also inherit the debt), the will instead falls to the state. The order makes some sense (first is spouse, then kids, then siblings, then direct family and finally extended family), but it's of course something left up to the present state of the law and depending on how that might change, something could occur you're not happy with. One specific example of this (albeit not for your case) is in the event you're gay; gay people often had to prepare their will specifically because the state wouldn't acknowledge them as the spouse (this was even with the "civil arrangements"), so the state would just skip over their spouse for inheritance and relinquish stuff to their family instead. This doesn't apply of course if you're not married, but it's one simple example in how that default order might have some asterisks that are easily avoidable if you just have a will. Basically it's useful to have one to avoid a lot of complications in the event of an untimely death (which can happen for all sorts of reasons).
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  I think I like that lawyer.
- coffeeblack 4y ago
  This is a discussion from 2005. By now it’s become pretty clear that it’s not possible to preemptively defend against this. There are a bazillion gTLDs and on large social media sites display names are not unique.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > he looked at me like I was an idiot about to have his identity stolen I won't call you an idiot, but I will say you're significantly increasing the risk of social engineering. I had a vanity domain email and someone use another TLD and tried to switch my bank accounts using it. The bank customer service agents are very willing to believe in the equality and authenticity @lastname.com and @lastname.net. If you go to a HN post on vanity email, there are countless stories about customer service agents not understanding how email addresses work.
  - phs318u 4y ago
    Thanks for that. You‘ve convinced me.
    - vineyardmike 4y ago
      I still use the vanity email, but you just have to think about the phish-ability of it. I typically use login@domain.com or similar for logins, instead of first@domain, or first.last@domain. It is not guessable if someone knows my name, while being easy enough for me to remember and read out on the phone or say to a person. I do own (or have a family member buy) most of the common lastname.tld's that exist. I'm just hoping that the confusion of uncommon tld's are a good defense. Eg. I hope CS agent won't easily believe login@vineyardmike.com should be login@vineyardmike.club or .wiki I do like your idea of trying to trademark the name (and I considered it too) but my name is common enough (and a word in a European language) that others have tried already, and its already in use with a handful of businesses across the world.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  Ok, Mr. Infinite Money lawyer.
jacquesm 4y ago
Yes, that is very true. But it is a risk I'll have to take. But a good reminder to check if there are still 'dangling pointers' to old social media accounts.
flandish 4y ago
Screwed in what way though? Someone posting as you? When it matters (job app?) just use the fact that the acct is not verified to show its not you. Social media should be considered one giant deepfake.
nscalf 4y ago
I don’t think any of this really matters. You can just not have a Facebook account, almost none of us are in positions to defend our social status or prevent social engineering on Facebook. If you’re famous, that’s one thing, but there’s no point if you’re an average person.

petre 4y ago

Can't you just threaten to sue if they don't delete it? In the EU one could probably use the GDPR to lawfully take down a fake account. In France there's a right to one's image law that can also be used.

Bluecobra 4y ago

It’s not just social media either. I remember reading something a few years ago recommending that you create an IRS online account to prevent someone else from fraudulently creating one on your behalf to steal tax returns. :/

phs318u 4y ago

Defensive account squatting. It's a thing. Was talking to a lawyer recently (making a will; I'm old), and he saw my email address was firstname@lastname.net (my lastname is almost globally unique), and he asked if I had bought up "the rest" i.e. lastname.com, .org, .com.au, .org.au, .net.au, .id. I told him my paranoia had met it's match in my laziness, and he looked at me like I was an idiot about to have his identity stolen.

bugbuddy 4y ago
The difference is that there can only be one owner of JohnSmith.com in the ICANN WHOIS database but there can be millions of John Smith on META platforms.
- oarsinsync 4y ago
  But if there’s a john@smith.net, there can also be a john@smith.com, john@smith.org, john@smith.app, john@smith.us, etc
  - bugbuddy 4y ago
    But most people would not be typing john@smith.net or any of the variants you mentioned into their browser address. My point still stands that domain names have a completely different set of constraints.
- phs318u 4y ago
  Yes, I accept that. I'm personally lucky that all the people alive with my surname in the world are related at the great-grandparent level. There's less than a handful with my firstname. I briefly looked into trademarking my personal name (legal to do in Australia) but its cost prohibitive (vs verifying for multiple online platforms). I even thought briefly about legally changing my name to include a new middle-name that was my PGP short key id. But Australia does not permit the use of numeric symbols in names. (Though I guess you could shift the hex string by 10 so 0-F maps to A-P. That wouldn't break the rules.)
  - ml_basics 4y ago
    Interesting idea RE PGP key as middle name... just it would suck to then later on lose access to your private key!
    - hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
      He can change his middle name again. It's not like the government will require him to produce the private key to do so
  - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
    Or generate a vanity key id?
  - 4y ago
cube00 4y ago
PSA: Having a will is not just if you are old. Every one should have one and if your affairs are straight forward you may be able to it yourself with a kit.
- lynx23 4y ago
  Can you elaborate? Why should everyone have a will? In particular, why should a kidless and unmarried person have a will?
  - bdsa 4y ago
    I presume it makes things simpler for your next of kin, whoever that may be (i.e. not a child/spouse, but a parent, sibling etc.)
  - noirscape 4y ago
    Makes things easier for when you're gone. You'll probably have some next of kin, even if you're on bad terms with them. If you die without a will, the state ends up determining what happens with your possessions. That usually means that they'll go down a list of relatives and ask them "hey, this person died, do you want to inherit their belongings". If they find absolutely nobody (this happens a lot with people that die with a lot of debt, since you also inherit the debt), the will instead falls to the state. The order makes some sense (first is spouse, then kids, then siblings, then direct family and finally extended family), but it's of course something left up to the present state of the law and depending on how that might change, something could occur you're not happy with. One specific example of this (albeit not for your case) is in the event you're gay; gay people often had to prepare their will specifically because the state wouldn't acknowledge them as the spouse (this was even with the "civil arrangements"), so the state would just skip over their spouse for inheritance and relinquish stuff to their family instead. This doesn't apply of course if you're not married, but it's one simple example in how that default order might have some asterisks that are easily avoidable if you just have a will. Basically it's useful to have one to avoid a lot of complications in the event of an untimely death (which can happen for all sorts of reasons).
actionfromafar 4y ago
I think I like that lawyer.
coffeeblack 4y ago
This is a discussion from 2005. By now it’s become pretty clear that it’s not possible to preemptively defend against this. There are a bazillion gTLDs and on large social media sites display names are not unique.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> he looked at me like I was an idiot about to have his identity stolen I won't call you an idiot, but I will say you're significantly increasing the risk of social engineering. I had a vanity domain email and someone use another TLD and tried to switch my bank accounts using it. The bank customer service agents are very willing to believe in the equality and authenticity @lastname.com and @lastname.net. If you go to a HN post on vanity email, there are countless stories about customer service agents not understanding how email addresses work.
- phs318u 4y ago
  Thanks for that. You‘ve convinced me.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    I still use the vanity email, but you just have to think about the phish-ability of it. I typically use login@domain.com or similar for logins, instead of first@domain, or first.last@domain. It is not guessable if someone knows my name, while being easy enough for me to remember and read out on the phone or say to a person. I do own (or have a family member buy) most of the common lastname.tld's that exist. I'm just hoping that the confusion of uncommon tld's are a good defense. Eg. I hope CS agent won't easily believe login@vineyardmike.com should be login@vineyardmike.club or .wiki I do like your idea of trying to trademark the name (and I considered it too) but my name is common enough (and a word in a European language) that others have tried already, and its already in use with a handful of businesses across the world.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Ok, Mr. Infinite Money lawyer.

jacquesm 4y ago

Yes, that is very true. But it is a risk I'll have to take. But a good reminder to check if there are still 'dangling pointers' to old social media accounts.

flandish 4y ago

Screwed in what way though? Someone posting as you? When it matters (job app?) just use the fact that the acct is not verified to show its not you. Social media should be considered one giant deepfake.

nscalf 4y ago

I don’t think any of this really matters. You can just not have a Facebook account, almost none of us are in positions to defend our social status or prevent social engineering on Facebook. If you’re famous, that’s one thing, but there’s no point if you’re an average person.