4 ms·
It'a name that's in a plain text document that anybody can personally look up on its browser. What's the point of hiding it, if it's a very good point for his a
by camillomiller 11y ago
It'a name that's in a plain text document that anybody can personally look up on its browser. What's the point of hiding it, if it's a very good point for his article?
- werid 11y agoNow it's indexed by search engines?
- icebraining 11y agohttps://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Arobots.txt https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3Arobots.txt Not that I agree it should be further divulged, mind you.
- MatthewWilkes 11y agoHe could have made exactly the same point with a fake name and institution. The information became public due to incompetence, he's made it much more visible… I don't care to speculate on what personal failing might be the reason.
- rlidwka 11y agoIt won't be exactly the same point. With a fake name there is no proof that the information in question ever existed. I would've probably masked a name, but institution url should stay there, so anyone could check that the point is valid.
- MatthewWilkes 11y agoOkay, that's fair, but it would be the same point for practical purposes, in my opinion. I don't personally believe that it's necessary for people to get hand-holding to independently verify his individual claims. Certainly other people could copy his methods to reproduce the results, but I'm not sure what the benefit is of links into the individual leaks of sensitive information.
- relet 11y agoThe point would be just as well made if he did not list the actual name.
- biot 11y agoThe exact same point can be made by redacting or anonymizing the individual's name. Perhaps the organization rethinks its use of the comment and removes it. However, this blog post will live on through the archives of the internet in perpetuity, forever labeling that individual and, unfortunately, helps out their stalker.