6 ms·

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 (m

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?
  - NineStarPoint 4y ago
    Those are all interesting things you could do, but in what way would they help when we’re talking about the Meta platform? We’re considering the case where someone is actively choosing to use a name that’s not their own for some reason, and if that reason required impersonation they’d just make an account using your publicly available PGP middle name as well.
- blibble 4y ago
  millions of John Smith all paying $11.99/month
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.

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?
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  Those are all interesting things you could do, but in what way would they help when we’re talking about the Meta platform? We’re considering the case where someone is actively choosing to use a name that’s not their own for some reason, and if that reason required impersonation they’d just make an account using your publicly available PGP middle name as well.
blibble 4y ago
millions of John Smith all paying $11.99/month

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.