But please, don't assume that LinkedIn is universally not trusted, the same way you assume that Microsoft is universally hated.
This is a neat feature, and I'm sure that many people trust LinkedIn enough to think that the trade-off is worth it. Would you prefer to not have the choice to have access to this feature, and prevent others from having it too?
I don't see this kind of reaction when 99% of other services ask access to a third-party API. Why is this so different? Is it because they have access to emails? What makes email SO MUCH more important than any other data to be in a category of their own? I don't think you can draw a line, and it's pure subjectivity.
Surely, the service itself is not a problem. Google would do the same thing, and you would all think it's the best thing since sliced bread? Why? Because most people already trust Google with their emails (and everything else), and accept that they know everything about them.
So please, don't criticize the solution, don't blame the hack (unless you can suggest a better way to do it). The only good reason not to use it is for lack of trust for LinkedIn, and nothing else.
I've had enough of your drama-seeking behaviors, and I don't think I'm the only one. Grow up.
"Would you prefer to not have the choice to have access to this feature, and prevent others from having it too?"
Yes, I would prefer that. LinkedIn has not shown itself to be a particularly good or careful actor in the past, and now, even if I don't opt in to this, my email to people using this feature runs through LinkedIn servers. There are always third parties between me and the person I'm emailing, but as the number increases, the likelihood of compromise or failure of delivery increases.
Common socialist thinking. People on top know better, therefore they should limit the freedom of the plebs.
Consider yourself lucky that you trust Google. Otherwise, imagine how risky it would be for you to email most people!
Paranoia is a hell of a disease. Probably the mental disorder of this era. Just look at all the drama that surrounds the NSA and "privacy".
In an alternative reality, people would probably pay for companies to spread their information publicly. And you know what? I'm confident that this reality is our future.
Learn to fight for the right things. Pro-tip: it's not privacy.
> What makes email SO MUCH more important than any other data to be in a category of their own?
The fact that email has become the de-facto master password for our online lives. If an attacker has my github password, they can push shitty code and write messages that I can roll back on the next day. If they have my email credentials, they can take over most of my online accounts anywhere.
If you don't trust LinkedIn, fine. Don't use it.
But please, don't assume that LinkedIn is universally not trusted, the same way you assume that Microsoft is universally hated.
This is a neat feature, and I'm sure that many people trust LinkedIn enough to think that the trade-off is worth it. Would you prefer to not have the choice to have access to this feature, and prevent others from having it too?
I don't see this kind of reaction when 99% of other services ask access to a third-party API. Why is this so different? Is it because they have access to emails? What makes email SO MUCH more important than any other data to be in a category of their own? I don't think you can draw a line, and it's pure subjectivity.
Surely, the service itself is not a problem. Google would do the same thing, and you would all think it's the best thing since sliced bread? Why? Because most people already trust Google with their emails (and everything else), and accept that they know everything about them.
So please, don't criticize the solution, don't blame the hack (unless you can suggest a better way to do it). The only good reason not to use it is for lack of trust for LinkedIn, and nothing else.
I've had enough of your drama-seeking behaviors, and I don't think I'm the only one. Grow up.