This service shouldn't exist. It breaks the very concept of email security. They're marketing it as though it's safe. Want hyperbole? Imagine Bayer marketing heroin as safe because you know, it's opt-in.

Want hyperbole? Compare an opt in social network to heroin.

Why the hell not? Heroin from Bayer would not have the quality control issues Heroin typically has.

It only becomes problematic when you consider that the user is getting themselves into a situation that they do not fully understand and potentially cannot easily back themselves out of.

With drugs that have a high potential to cause harm, we typically force the consumer to consult a professional before allowing them to proceed. Tech is still in the era of patent medicines.

I specifically used the example of Heroin as Bayer marketed it as a non-addictive alternative to morphine, proclaiming it safe.

Hitler.

> It breaks the very concept of email security.

There's no such thing. Email breaks the concept of email security.

I understand the opinion, but I don't understand the sudden outrage.

LI, Google and Facebook have always wanted your third-party email credentials for Friend Finder-style features. The only difference is that this time we cannot even hope that they delete them after logging in once. Security-wise, it's all the same.

Not that hard to imagine really given Bayer did market heroin as safe. Is very good for coughs, apparently.

I think that's the lost point on some of the reactions.

> Nerd outrage hyperbole much?

How is that even close to a valid response to someone that's exercising critical thinking?

It's a blaming statement, which means he's not.

Right, so I should be ok about a company that recently lost 7 million passwords that were 'encrypted' using only SHA1, suddenly getting access to a whole raft more passwords?

Access to this many passwords is a threat even if my password is not one of them.

Finally, it may be opt in, but are they going to explain to the user that they get to keep a password for an account to which they have no legitimate right?

That's not quite true, in that all the emails I send to people who have opted in are now available to LinkedIn. You have no way of totally opting out without encrypting all your email.

For all you know, I (or anyone else you email) could have a simple "forward all email to [email protected]" filter running. If you don't want the second party to share your email with a third party, don't send the second party an email.

Like your average user is going to know the implications of opting into this service.

I doubt they have a warning when you install this "This is going to let us read all your emails AND the emails of people who communicate with you (without their consent)

...oh yes, and get your username / password for your email accounts"

And if I am communicating with someone who installed this hack then I certainly didn't opt-in.

>And if I am communicating with someone who installed this hack then I certainly didn't opt-in.

This is extremely important and getting lost in the noise.

Opt in or opt out doesn't matter (think average user understanding of what is going on here, really). Things like this just should not exist.

It's only opt-in for the end user. If it were really opt-in, it would be opt-in for the domain owners and/or the email providers. Come to think of it, I wouldn't have an issue with this, and it might be worth it for recruiters who use LinkedIn for everything (and in my opinion are doing it wrong).

Of course the average user understands that this feature allows LinkedIn to read their email... right?

I don't think the average user understands that at all.

Stop signs are opt-in. Ignoring them and/or telling other people to ignore them is a bad idea.

wat