220 karma · joined May 8, 2010
henrian.com · io@henrian.com
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/chbrown; my proof: https://keybase.io/chbrown/sigs/kf-oAAgnHRc59Gxg8w4qJdjXYZrGgvorVKCQPkZt2QM ]
In Chrome, for example, install the "Referer Control" extension and add an entry for "ft.com", select the "Custom" referer setting, and paste "https://www.google.com/" (without quotes) into the textbox for that entry.
What I want is some assurance like "The EFF has complete read-access to our platform and maintains a continuous independent audit of these services to verify that we comply with our own privacy assurances." The EFF is probably not the organization to do such a thing, but that's kind of what I'm looking for.
Q: "Why should I trust you?" A: "Because you should! We're good people! Honest!"
I'd love to trust a service like this, but there's no credible effort to actually establish that trust.
It's likely that he'll actually catch a Googler's attention, but for many of us, user feedback is not an option.
@jacquesm's http://jacquesmattheij.com/ham-or-spam-gmail-not-to-be-trust... is another recent instance — but again, there's no call to action.
Gmail is great for some people, but I prefer having more control, and I highly recommend https://FastMail.com if Gmail is failing to meet your needs.
The articles linked to above span several months, but it's generating serial links, so I can only assume that it's able to track visits back to the subscriber and/or my university account.
The ReadCube HTML5 reader looks nice, but does not work with JavaScript disabled (no surprise there). It uses JavaScript to override text selection (disabling copy&paste), but after a little meddling with the developer tools and element inspector, you can find a decently near ancestor to the text and copy the DOM as html. Stick that into a new file and you can select (and copy) the text without too much further hassle.
The DOM is awkward and split up kind of like a PDF (selecting a range of text goes haywire in unpredictable cases), but in comparing the HTML DOM hierarchy to the text object structure in the original PDF (which, as a subscriber, I can download), I found no obvious similarities, so I'm guessing they aren't translating the PDF to HTML directly.
* DDoS the gmail account in question with spam, particularly spam that looks like it contains confidential information.
* Create a clever job ad on reddit, advertising a GS position in IT Security division by tracking down an email user supposedly played by a GS confederate, and then provide the gmail account in the ad
* Blackmail the unintended recipient, perhaps by sending the sort of data it's illegal in the U.S. to even own
* Mock the "From" header for thousand of typical spam messages with the gmail account address, send them to destinations that are sure to pass through Spamhaus & co.'s filters
* Fill the user's inbox to capacity; e.g., sign up for Quora with the gmail address in question
Certainly on the gray hat side of things, but asking Google to delete an email isn't exactly kosher to begin with.
* Library of Congress: http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2013/01/update-on-the-twitter-archi...
* Twitter Data grants: https://blog.twitter.com/2014/introducing-twitter-data-grant...
I'll admit, I haven't applied for access through either one, but neither have I seen any papers cite access through those venues—and I read quite a few NLP + Twitter papers.
Then I try to find the "Redo" button in Mathematica and I reconsider.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/billion-euro-supercomputer-to--simu...