Talk:1279: Reverse Identity Theft - Revision history

172.70.86.22 at 01:51, 1 February 2022

2022-02-01T01:51:34Z

Gunterkoenigsmann at 21:22, 15 February 2020

2020-02-15T21:22:12Z

162.158.79.23: bad disease pun

2018-01-26T21:05:06Z

bad disease pun

Davidy22 at 18:39, 18 January 2016

2016-01-18T18:39:58Z

162.158.6.230 at 14:54, 18 January 2016

2016-01-18T14:54:05Z

Davidy22 at 19:46, 21 January 2014

2014-01-21T19:46:33Z

108.162.216.88: m answering an old question nobody (probably) will ever see

2014-01-21T18:16:23Z

m answering an old question nobody (probably) will ever see

Dgbrt at 12:16, 24 October 2013

2013-10-24T12:16:41Z

Stilbene at 23:26, 23 October 2013

2013-10-23T23:26:30Z

Xhfz at 21:14, 22 October 2013

2013-10-22T21:14:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 1 February 2022
Line 44:		Line 44:

	I can't imagine how morbidly funny it would be if someone named Edward Coli did this. ~Cye from #team cyeborg		I can't imagine how morbidly funny it would be if someone named Edward Coli did this. ~Cye from #team cyeborg
		+
		+	As I'm passing, a true story. My Mum had been piggybacking on the family home's sole email of <firstname><lastname>@<isp>.<tld> that was set up by Dad, in various online interest-groups she gradually got involved in over the years. He died a few years ago and she decided she finally wanted her own address (apart from everything else, Dad's address was being spammed quite a bit, so keeping it for checking at leisure for real 'legacy' communications but otherwise getting a clean sheet and telling regular contacts to slightly change their addressbook entry for her made a lot of sense), so tried adding <hername><lastname>@... on the same ISP. Found that already taken! Despite a quite rare surname and though a major ISP, hardly gmail.com in reach. Compromised with some semi-random digits. Shortly afterwards, I went with her to get a new washing machine, and she all too easily succumbed to the salesperson's request for her email, and I wasn't quick enough to politely stop her. But I waited until we left the shop to tell her a) She probably shouldn't have, as it would mostly mean more spam, and b) it was ok, as she'd given the <hername><lastname>@... one. Nothing important would get sent there, and we wouldn't be seeing it anyway! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.22\|172.70.86.22]] 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 :This must be the one of the few times where we have such an well written and complete explanation this early in the day -- well done [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])
 ::Thank you, but all of what I said has been removed, and the new explanation does make more sense!  Or at least the bits of it that are relevant.  ;-)  [[User:Grahame|Grahame]] ([[User talk:Grahame|talk]]) 00:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Grahame
 AFAIK if you have adress name@gmail.com, then gmail delivers all mails in shape name+anything@gmail.com to your box. So the trick is to make address like J@gmail.com, then heavily use J+Brown@gmail.com to the point, that other people catch up an for example Joe Smith instead correct Smith@gmail.com will write J+Smith@gmail.com - which would end in your mailbox then. {{unsigned ip|89.176.232.253}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 26 January 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:

	It's worth noting that the name "Randall" peaked in popularity in the 1950s, so most people with that name are older than Randall Munroe. This isn't just an "old person" thing. My name peaked in popularity in the 80s and 90s, so I get a lot of people in their 20s and 30s signing up for stuff with my e-mail address. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.6.230}}		It's worth noting that the name "Randall" peaked in popularity in the 1950s, so most people with that name are older than Randall Munroe. This isn't just an "old person" thing. My name peaked in popularity in the 80s and 90s, so I get a lot of people in their 20s and 30s signing up for stuff with my e-mail address. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.6.230}}
		+
		+	I can't imagine how morbidly funny it would be if someone named Edward Coli did this. ~Cye from #team cyeborg

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 18 January 2016
Line 39:		Line 39:
	:I think the "reverse" nature is that instead of the THEIF going out and hacking the VICTIM'S email to learn their identity and steal information, the VICTIM is the one delivering the information to the THEIF'S email account. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.8.40\|70.31.8.40]] 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)		:I think the "reverse" nature is that instead of the THEIF going out and hacking the VICTIM'S email to learn their identity and steal information, the VICTIM is the one delivering the information to the THEIF'S email account. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.8.40\|70.31.8.40]] 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

−	It's worth noting that the name "Randall" peaked in popularity in the 1950s, so most people with that name are older than Randall Munroe. This isn't just an "old person" thing. My name peaked in popularity in the 80s and 90s, so I get a lot of people in their 20s and 30s signing up for stuff with my e-mail address.	+	It's worth noting that the name "Randall" peaked in popularity in the 1950s, so most people with that name are older than Randall Munroe. This isn't just an "old person" thing. My name peaked in popularity in the 80s and 90s, so I get a lot of people in their 20s and 30s signing up for stuff with my e-mail address. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.6.230}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 18 January 2016
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:I think the "reverse" nature is that instead of the THEIF going out and hacking the VICTIM'S email to learn their identity and steal information, the VICTIM is the one delivering the information to the THEIF'S email account. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.8.40\|70.31.8.40]] 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)		:I think the "reverse" nature is that instead of the THEIF going out and hacking the VICTIM'S email to learn their identity and steal information, the VICTIM is the one delivering the information to the THEIF'S email account. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.8.40\|70.31.8.40]] 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	It's worth noting that the name "Randall" peaked in popularity in the 1950s, so most people with that name are older than Randall Munroe. This isn't just an "old person" thing. My name peaked in popularity in the 80s and 90s, so I get a lot of people in their 20s and 30s signing up for stuff with my e-mail address.

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :I don't get it. How is [First Initial]+[Last Name] the same as [ FIailnrst]+[ LNaemst]? That isn't concatenation, it is scrambling. &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;{{unsigned|Stilbene}}
-::Regular Expressions character classes
+::Regular Expressions character classes {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.88}}
 The plus sign is clearly an indication of concatenation and not meant as a literal character. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 21 January 2014
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:I don't get it. How is [First Initial]+[Last Name] the same as [ FIailnrst]+[ LNaemst]? That isn't concatenation, it is scrambling. ~~~~{{unsigned\|Stilbene}}		:I don't get it. How is [First Initial]+[Last Name] the same as [ FIailnrst]+[ LNaemst]? That isn't concatenation, it is scrambling. ~~~~{{unsigned\|Stilbene}}
		+
		+	::Regular Expressions character classes

	The plus sign is clearly an indication of concatenation and not meant as a literal character. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)		The plus sign is clearly an indication of concatenation and not meant as a literal character. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 23 October 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:

	[First Initial]+[Last Name] is the same as [ FIailnrst]+[ LNaemst]. Then he is clearly referring to names such as IrinaN or FanniL. [[User:Xhfz\|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz\|talk]]) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) <small>This is a joke, and the plus sign means concatenation.</small>		[First Initial]+[Last Name] is the same as [ FIailnrst]+[ LNaemst]. Then he is clearly referring to names such as IrinaN or FanniL. [[User:Xhfz\|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz\|talk]]) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC) <small>This is a joke, and the plus sign means concatenation.</small>
		+
		+	:I don't get it. How is [First Initial]+[Last Name] the same as [ FIailnrst]+[ LNaemst]? That isn't concatenation, it is scrambling. ~~~~

	The plus sign is clearly an indication of concatenation and not meant as a literal character. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)		The plus sign is clearly an indication of concatenation and not meant as a literal character. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91\|184.66.160.91]] 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::Most internet users face at some point the message that their desired email address is "already taken". [...]
 :And ''that'' problem is made worse by not allowing any variation in the address. [[User:LotharW|LotharW]] ([[User talk:LotharW|talk]]) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 The second scenario presented in the explanation has nothing to do with ''reverse identity theft''. The idea is that the victim is exposing their own identity by assuming someone else's address. A third party sending emails to the wrong recipient (thus exposing the victim) is very unfortunate, but there is nothing '''reverse''' about it. [[User:LotharW|LotharW]] ([[User talk:LotharW|talk]]) 17:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 :I think the "reverse" nature is that instead of the THEIF going out and hacking the VICTIM'S email to learn their identity and steal information, the VICTIM is the one delivering the information to the THEIF'S email account. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.8.40|70.31.8.40]] 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)