5 ms·

Or embed a google search within an iframe.

noir_lord 12y ago
The button requires user action, the iframe is passive I'm not convinced getting someone put on a watchlist without them taking a specific action is a particularly moral thing to do... For the sake of clarity I wasn't suggesting the button be put on without a clear explanation of what it did.
- malka 12y ago
  That's the point. A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless.
  - GFischer 12y ago
    Or maybe it will end up as a high-tech version of the Stasi archives (if it isn't there already). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
    - bausson 12y ago
      No way it's there, the Stasi did have file on most citizens, but it wasn't as well indexed, comprehensive, and easily searchable as what current government 'security' agencies have.
  - draugadrotten 12y ago
    > A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless. In the right circumstances, it would be very useful. Not for catching terrorists but for putting pressure on the people on the list. "We are only monitoring her because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "She is only restricted from air travel because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "She is only denied a fair trial because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "Please cooperate with us Miss President, unless you want us to tell the press that you have been on the NSA terrorist watchlist since 2001." Having everyone on the terrorist watchlist is very useful, when you are able to selectively choose if and when you are disclosing the fact that someone is on the list.
    - malka 12y ago
      I don't get your point. With your use, they might as well have no list at all. It would be exactly the same as having everyone on it.
      - draugadrotten 12y ago
        The use of the word 'everyone' isn't literal. It's possible that NSAs list of suspects would not literally include every single human being, but it could still include too many. The Sheldon character is very funny on TV.
      - GrinningFool 12y ago
        Sounds like you got OP's point just fine.
im3w1l 12y ago
A referer field would let "them" see it for what it what. I previously did a hn-submission on how to do this without leaking a referer field. http://bracka.se/hn/csrf.html http://bracka.se/hn/csrf.html Since then, onion.to has gone down, so the first iframe wont work, but the second two will.

The button requires user action, the iframe is passive I'm not convinced getting someone put on a watchlist without them taking a specific action is a particularly moral thing to do... For the sake of clarity I wasn't suggesting the button be put on without a clear explanation of what it did.

malka 12y ago
That's the point. A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless.
- GFischer 12y ago
  Or maybe it will end up as a high-tech version of the Stasi archives (if it isn't there already). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
  - bausson 12y ago
    No way it's there, the Stasi did have file on most citizens, but it wasn't as well indexed, comprehensive, and easily searchable as what current government 'security' agencies have.
- draugadrotten 12y ago
  > A watchlist with every human, and its friends on it, is kinda useless. In the right circumstances, it would be very useful. Not for catching terrorists but for putting pressure on the people on the list. "We are only monitoring her because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "She is only restricted from air travel because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "She is only denied a fair trial because she is on the terrorist watchlist." "Please cooperate with us Miss President, unless you want us to tell the press that you have been on the NSA terrorist watchlist since 2001." Having everyone on the terrorist watchlist is very useful, when you are able to selectively choose if and when you are disclosing the fact that someone is on the list.
  - malka 12y ago
    I don't get your point. With your use, they might as well have no list at all. It would be exactly the same as having everyone on it.
    - draugadrotten 12y ago
      The use of the word 'everyone' isn't literal. It's possible that NSAs list of suspects would not literally include every single human being, but it could still include too many. The Sheldon character is very funny on TV.
    - GrinningFool 12y ago
      Sounds like you got OP's point just fine.

im3w1l 12y ago

A referer field would let "them" see it for what it what. I previously did a hn-submission on how to do this without leaking a referer field. http://bracka.se/hn/csrf.html http://bracka.se/hn/csrf.html Since then, onion.to has gone down, so the first iframe wont work, but the second two will.