3 ms·
There are definitely many cases where it isn't an issue since you were going to tell the user the time anyway (like sent time on a message)
by andersa 3y ago
There are definitely many cases where it isn't an issue since you were going to tell the user the time anyway (like sent time on a message)
- giancarlostoro 3y agoI think Twitter also does it as well. I think its really nice honestly.
- madeofpalk 3y agoFWIW, Snowflake came from Twitter https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/a/2010/announcing-snowflake https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/a/2010/announcing... Discord uses Twitter's Snowflake.
- afavour 3y agoCan’t agree with that logic. Unless it’s specifically documented leaking timestamp data is going to get totally forgotten. So when you add (e.g.) the ability to change the sent timestamp on a message you’re going to inadvertently leak when a timestamp has been changed. Could cause embarrassment in a lot of scenarios.
- zo1 3y agoThis reminds me of that recent investigation regarding fudged data in those Harvard studies. The fields stored the "original" ID, solidifying their creation sequence, which differed to the displayed sequence - Implying that the fields were updated out-of-sequence, thereby they were tampered with.
- RhodesianHunter 3y agoThis sounds like a completely arbitrarily invented argument against a technology that's perfectly useful in many scenarios.
- afavour 3y agoInadvertently leaking private information is not an arbitrary argument.
- giancarlostoro 3y agoSure but what are cases where knowing when a random GUID was created is actually an issue of privacy? Every platform I've seen using Snowflakes that exact same data is publicly available.
- afavour 3y agoIt’s a case by case thing. I don’t disagree that in the vast majority of cases it won’t matter at all. But once it becomes the norm/default it’s inevitable that it’ll lead to inadvertent leaks.