3 ms·

I suppose no one is using gmail, gtalk, g+, g hangout, yahoo mail, etc etc here? The web is open, putting credentials in urls is stupid, and complaining about

by dewiz 13y ago

I suppose no one is using gmail, gtalk, g+, g hangout, yahoo mail, etc etc here? The web is open, putting credentials in urls is stupid, and complaining about spider hits is too. If you think your URLs are safe because no one KNOWS about them, you are simply doing it wrong. Hopefully your URLs are not changing any server side resource, otherwise you have a bigger problem than a spider. Have you considered those spiders might be verifying that you are not spamming your friends, e.g. your computer could be infected and MS is trying to help your friends?

vidarh 13y ago
> If you think your URLs are safe because no one KNOWS about them, you are simply doing it wrong. Case in point: I regularly bring up test web servers on my home server on weird ports, and Googlebot regularly finds them; I don't particularly care - anything I want to be private I password protect, but these are sites that are linked from nowhere. But there's any number of acceptable way it could find them: Some of the tools I use have default setups of Google Analytics that'd leak any urls I visit on them; I often click through links to other public sites from them, and any of those sites might leak the referrer. So I agree with you that you should expect that URLs stay private. But you can still have privacy expectations about the exchange of a public URL. E.g. someone might not like the thought that there is potentially a record that they're visiting certain embarrassing sites. The reason there is a shitstorm over this is not that Skype is necessarily or even likely doing anything nefarious with the URLs, but that people had an expectation of privacy about their conversation that they then found out clearly is not being met. If Skype/MS wants to scan every link, or retrieve them and put the contents on billboards in public spaces, there's nothing inherently wrong with either option. What is wrong is not realising that the actions they are taking are at odds with peoples privacy expectations and making sure to communicate what their actual expectation should be to users.

by dewiz 13y ago

vidarh 13y ago

> If you think your URLs are safe because no one KNOWS about them, you are simply doing it wrong. Case in point: I regularly bring up test web servers on my home server on weird ports, and Googlebot regularly finds them; I don't particularly care - anything I want to be private I password protect, but these are sites that are linked from nowhere. But there's any number of acceptable way it could find them: Some of the tools I use have default setups of Google Analytics that'd leak any urls I visit on them; I often click through links to other public sites from them, and any of those sites might leak the referrer. So I agree with you that you should expect that URLs stay private. But you can still have privacy expectations about the exchange of a public URL. E.g. someone might not like the thought that there is potentially a record that they're visiting certain embarrassing sites. The reason there is a shitstorm over this is not that Skype is necessarily or even likely doing anything nefarious with the URLs, but that people had an expectation of privacy about their conversation that they then found out clearly is not being met. If Skype/MS wants to scan every link, or retrieve them and put the contents on billboards in public spaces, there's nothing inherently wrong with either option. What is wrong is not realising that the actions they are taking are at odds with peoples privacy expectations and making sure to communicate what their actual expectation should be to users.