3 ms·
Warning: GMail security failure
- mattmaroon 19y agoInteresting. I would have paid the guy the $250, then gone after him in any way possible once my domain was back. I would imagine that would also make it easier to find out who he was. I'm all about doing whatever I'd have to do to get that guy behind bars, but screwing yourself out of a potentially large sum over the general principle of not giving money to criminals seems kinda silly. Buy the domain back, rake in the profit you make from it, and use that to fight the douche.
- cellis 19y agoI second this. While it is obviously distasteful to conduct business in this manner, sometimes unsavory practices are necessary to stay in business. Just the world we live in.
- tarkin2 19y agoPerhaps it's a British thing but I wouldn't have paid the thief either. It seems like doing such would perpetuate this activity. It's far more moralistic than pragmatic, but I guess he and I value those more than monetary benefits. I would only pay him if I was sure I could successfully bring criminal proceedings against him - otherwise I would have done what this man did: refused to perpetuate this criminal activity and wrote about my experiences to warn others and therefore ultimately damage this kind of activity through awareness.
- edw519 19y agoThis kind of thing persists for the same reason as spam, because, sometimes, it works. They will only stop when "everyone" stops enabling.
- mattmaroon 19y agoSo if you know "everyone" will not stop enabling, and you know most people won't, should you do so, even at great cost to yourself?
- edw519 19y agoI guess that would depend on the cost. This reminds me of the story of the old man who was picking up beached starfish and throwing them back into the sea. A young man came by and said, "You old fool! There are thousands are starfish dying here - you can never save them all. Don't you see that what you're doing doesn't matter?" As the old man threw another into the sea, he responded, "To that one it does."
- tarkin2 19y agoI agree it depends on the cost. If it literately meant I would lose my home if I did not pay the thief then I definitely would pay him/her. But as to your argument about "everyone", it's more about diminishing this market rather than effacing it. I doubt any market can be completely effaced. But the real tipping point comes when a majority of people believe that they can or cannot affect this market. If people accept they cannot alter things, the market will flourish through acquiescence. If people accept they can affect the market, and encourage others to do the same, then they will; If you can get enough people to believe they can do something, then they will do that something through the sheer force of community action. If the web community accepts they more or less must pay thieves who do this then the market, fuelled by the thieves' acknowledgement of this, will flourish. If the community decides they will not pay thieves who have managed to do this then the thieves will eventually realise that this market has diminished. Of course, this requires a community effort and most people will not think of the wider implications of their, albeit beneficial to themselves, actions.
- nickb 19y agoI would have paid by using a CC and then issued a chargeback.
- mattmaroon 19y agoHa. Brilliant, though I'd guess any decent escrow service has some plan for this contingency.
- MuddyMo 19y agoSo, it's just a given the GMail's security SUCKS?
- chaostheory 19y agoI could be wrong but I think they fixed this particular malicious site forwarding your email issue. By default, you can no longer set that filter until you change a setting. Still, I use gmail in one browser (Opera) and surf with another (Firefox).