3 ms·

Firstly, the comparison with DNS doesn't really make sense. DNS works because there is a one to one mapping between name and number. There is only one johnsmit

Firstly, the comparison with DNS doesn't really make sense. DNS works because there is a one to one mapping between name and number. There is only one johnsmith.com anywhere on the web. OTOH, there are many thousands of John Smiths out in the real world, each with their own unique set of phone numbers (and other things that this guy seems to have overlooked from an "address book", like an actual address, or an email address, or relationships to other people). DNS doesn't solve the fact that many people called John Smith may have their own websites. They won't all be found at johnsmith.com. This is solved through a combination of search engines (equivalent of a phone book) and bookmarks (which is pretty much the equivalent of a person's address book - so DNS alone clearly hasn't removed the need for address books in the online world). Secondly, that's all totally irrelevant to the actual issue with Path - whether someone's got access to a complete list of your contacts with all of the details required to contact them, and got this without your permission.

darklajid 15y ago
I fail to understand your point. Yes, lots of people share names. But it should be enough to store _one_ handle to get to (=> resolve) your _current_ number. That might be your domain or email address. Or something totally different. The major part for me here is not 'do we need digits without meaning', it is 'bind some name to a way of contacting the person'. DNS as a comparison makes sense for me. I store john@smith.com as a contact. When I want to call that guy my phone figures out how to reach him _and he can update that information_. Just like you can move your domain name to point to a different number. If the name server is under your control (or your hoster loves you) and ignoring certain limitations of the protocol and buggy caching behavior, you could even change the result of a lookup every minute. That, for phone numbers, would be awesome.
- prof_hobart 15y ago
  Because a)that doesn't get rid of the need for address books - even with email I still need an address book to tell me which John Smith I want to email, and b) that's got absolutely nothing to do with the Path issue - them uploading my address book with a single phone number/phone DNS whatever for my contacts without my permission is just as bad as them uploading my address book with 5 different phone numbers for each of my contacts

darklajid 15y ago

I fail to understand your point. Yes, lots of people share names. But it should be enough to store _one_ handle to get to (=> resolve) your _current_ number. That might be your domain or email address. Or something totally different. The major part for me here is not 'do we need digits without meaning', it is 'bind some name to a way of contacting the person'. DNS as a comparison makes sense for me. I store john@smith.com as a contact. When I want to call that guy my phone figures out how to reach him _and he can update that information_. Just like you can move your domain name to point to a different number. If the name server is under your control (or your hoster loves you) and ignoring certain limitations of the protocol and buggy caching behavior, you could even change the result of a lookup every minute. That, for phone numbers, would be awesome.

prof_hobart 15y ago
Because a)that doesn't get rid of the need for address books - even with email I still need an address book to tell me which John Smith I want to email, and b) that's got absolutely nothing to do with the Path issue - them uploading my address book with a single phone number/phone DNS whatever for my contacts without my permission is just as bad as them uploading my address book with 5 different phone numbers for each of my contacts