Open Facebook Sandwich

FB roffians:
There is a thread on the FB roff site you should take a quick look
at.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote ...
FB roffians:
There is a thread on the FB roff site you should take a quick look
at.


I've been on FB for a few (6?) months now. I've learned that much like on
USENET, there is no real privacy on FB. There are a few ways to minimize
"exposure" but all is discoverable. Google "facebook hacks" to see what a
moderately-determined person can find.

In the FB thread, a couple people have brought up concerns about people
seeing posts that, while pedestrian by roffian standards, may appear
incriminating to a less discerning audience. True enough that the potential
for exposure exists, but so does it here. It's really no different. Unless
you sockpuppet yourself here or have somehow magically managed to keep your
"real" name from ever being included (unlikely -- I tried and failed), if
someone wants to find what you've written, it's not too hard.

On the upside to USENET, not many people know of its existence, let alone
know how to access it. While that may give a facade of privacy, Google does
not exclude USENET posts from its search results, making the separation much
like the emperor's new clothes.

I'm not saying that it's not smart to have privacy concerns with respect to
FB exposure, just that there is little difference between FB and ROFF.
Everything on the internet (or, "series of tubes" for the Stevens fans) must
always be considered public.

-Dan
(who is leaving in a couple hours to chase steelies on the PM. Gonna be a
cold weekend.)

On Jan 8, 9:28*am, "Daniel-San" (Rot13)
wrote:
"riverman" wrote ...

FB roffians:
There is a thread on the FB roff site you should take a quick look
at.

I've been on FB for a few (6?) months now. I've learned that much like on
USENET, there is no real privacy on FB. There are a few ways to minimize
"exposure" but all is discoverable. Google "facebook hacks" to see what a
moderately-determined person can find.

In the FB thread, a couple people have brought up concerns about people
seeing posts that, while pedestrian by roffian standards, may appear
incriminating to a less discerning audience. True enough that the potential
for exposure exists, but so does it here. It's really no different. Unless
you sockpuppet yourself here or have somehow magically managed to keep your
"real" name from ever being included (unlikely -- I tried and failed), if
someone wants to find what you've written, it's not too hard.

On the upside to USENET, not many people know of its existence, let alone
know how to access it. While that may give a facade of privacy, Google does
not exclude USENET posts from its search results, making the separation much
like the emperor's new clothes.

I'm not saying that it's not smart to have privacy concerns with respect to
FB exposure, just that there is little difference between FB and ROFF.
Everything on the internet (or, "series of tubes" for the Stevens fans) must
always be considered public.

-Dan
(who is leaving in a couple hours to chase steelies on the PM. Gonna be a
cold weekend.)

I tried a few times to find the ROFF group on FB. Can you help me? I
am a novice and have only posted here a few times recently.

craig wrote:

I tried a few times to find the ROFF group on FB. Can you help me? I
am a novice and have only posted here a few times recently.


God, I can't believe I'm saying this, but (queue 13yr old whiny voice):
"friend me"

dan brunsvold -- goofy pic, red, bad drawing of Marx (no, I ain't a marxist)
saying "become a historian, make big money"

On Jan 8, 10:28*pm, "Daniel-San" (Rot13)
wrote:

I'm not saying that it's not smart to have privacy concerns with respect to
FB exposure, just that there is little difference between FB and ROFF.
Everything on the internet (or, "series of tubes" for the Stevens fans) must
always be considered public.

-Dan
(who is leaving in a couple hours to chase steelies on the PM. Gonna be a
cold weekend.)


True that everything in FB (or ROFF) should always be considered
public. But one huge difference between the two is that usenet is
supposedly a dying thing, while FB is the New Big Thing. As such, its
being actively targeted by data-miners, identity-thieves and other
unscrupulous types. I think its wise to be even more cautious with
privacy and security settings on FB than on usenet (where we should
still be cautious). Caution can't guarantee security, but that doesn't
mean folks should be lax. Relying on 'security through being lost in
the crowd' is silly; we represent a very small and comparatively very
rich segment of the FB crowd...there are people who are looking to
find info from folks like us.

Google 'Facebook security' and read about it. This is a much-discussed
theme these days, and FB is pretty much the biggest culprit. Their
default setting is the LOWEST security level, and you have to go to at
least three separate sites to increase your security settings. Most
users don't even fully understand what the settings even mean, let
alone where they all are.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote...
On Jan 8, 10:28 pm, "Daniel-San" (Rot13)
wrote:

I'm not saying that it's not smart to have privacy concerns with respect
to
FB exposure, just that there is little difference between FB and ROFF.
Everything on the internet (or, "series of tubes" for the Stevens fans)
must
always be considered public.

-Dan
(who is leaving in a couple hours to chase steelies on the PM. Gonna be a
cold weekend.)


True that everything in FB (or ROFF) should always be considered
public. But one huge difference between the two is that usenet is
supposedly a dying thing, while FB is the New Big Thing. As such, its
being actively targeted by data-miners, identity-thieves and other
unscrupulous types. I think its wise to be even more cautious with
privacy and security settings on FB than on usenet (where we should
still be cautious). Caution can't guarantee security, but that doesn't
mean folks should be lax. Relying on 'security through being lost in
the crowd' is silly; we represent a very small and comparatively very
rich segment of the FB crowd...there are people who are looking to
find info from folks like us.

Google 'Facebook security' and read about it. This is a much-discussed
theme these days, and FB is pretty much the biggest culprit. Their
default setting is the LOWEST security level, and you have to go to at
least three separate sites to increase your security settings. Most
users don't even fully understand what the settings even mean, let
alone where they all are.



You are absolutely correct that there are scads of people looking to exploit
folks all over the internet. FB-mining, USENET, Nigerian scams, phishing,
etc. are what make the criminal world go 'round in the age of technology. FB
is probably (?) the current target-in-vogue among today's scumbag, but that
will likely change in the not-too-distant future. You are also correct that
FB is not exactly security-conscious. They are in business to sell your
information to advertisers (sort of, anyway) and in order to do so, that
information has to be accessible and exploitable.

All I'm saying is that whether it be FB, USENET, the old WELL, or wherever,
all that you post must be considered public. Emails get out, emails get sent
to the wrong address (even accidentally posted here from time to time),
laptops get lost/stolen, hackers get into places they shouldn't, some idiot
somewhere goofs, whatever. Assume it will be broadcasted all over the world
if you post it, and then, post accordingly. People who don't understand that
are setting themselves up for a lot of potential trouble. Other than SSL or
similar, relying on security/privacy settings is like drinking whisky when
it's cold outside -- feels good, but really accomplishes little.

-Dan
(who is about to leave for a weekend of just that -- and I don't care if the
whisky really accomplishes little.)

On Jan 9, 12:06*am, "Daniel-San" (Rot13)
wrote:
"riverman" wrote...

On Jan 8, 10:28 pm, "Daniel-San" (Rot13)
wrote:

I'm not saying that it's not smart to have privacy concerns with respect
to
FB exposure, just that there is little difference between FB and ROFF.
Everything on the internet (or, "series of tubes" for the Stevens fans)
must
always be considered public.

-Dan
(who is leaving in a couple hours to chase steelies on the PM. Gonna be a
cold weekend.)

True that everything in FB (or ROFF) should always be considered
public. But one huge difference between the two is that usenet is
supposedly a dying thing, while FB is the New Big Thing. As such, its
being actively targeted by data-miners, identity-thieves and other
unscrupulous types. I think its wise to be even more cautious with
privacy and security settings on FB than on usenet (where we should
still be cautious). Caution can't guarantee security, but that doesn't
mean folks should be lax. Relying on 'security through being lost in
the crowd' is silly; we represent a very small and comparatively very
rich segment of the FB crowd...there are people who are looking to
find info from folks like us.

Google 'Facebook security' and read about it. This is a much-discussed
theme these days, and FB is pretty much the biggest culprit. Their
default setting is the LOWEST security level, and you have to go to at
least three separate sites to increase your security settings. Most
users don't even fully understand what the settings even mean, let
alone where they all are.

You are absolutely correct that there are scads of people looking to exploit
folks all over the internet. FB-mining, USENET, Nigerian scams, phishing,
etc. are what make the criminal world go 'round in the age of technology. FB
is probably (?) the current target-in-vogue among today's scumbag, but that
will likely change in the not-too-distant future. You are also correct that
FB is not exactly security-conscious. They are in business to sell your
information to advertisers (sort of, anyway) and in order to do so, that
information has to be accessible and exploitable.

All I'm saying is that whether it be FB, USENET, the old WELL, or wherever,
all that you post must be considered public. Emails get out, emails get sent
to the wrong address (even accidentally posted here from time to time),
laptops get lost/stolen, hackers get into places they shouldn't, some idiot
somewhere goofs, whatever. Assume it will be broadcasted all over the world
if you post it, and then, post accordingly. People who don't understand that
are setting themselves up for a lot of potential trouble. Other than SSL or
similar, relying on security/privacy settings is like drinking whisky when
it's cold outside -- feels good, but really accomplishes little.

-Dan
(who is about to leave for a weekend of just that -- and I don't care if the
whisky really accomplishes little.)

It sounds like we are in complete agreement. But what is your stance
on making FB-roff a 'closed' site, accessible only to members (while
anyone can become a member by being invited by a current member)?

--riverman

"riverman" wrote ...

[...]

It sounds like we are in complete agreement. But what is your stance
on making FB-roff a 'closed' site, accessible only to members (while
anyone can become a member by being invited by a current member)?


Don't know if I've been around long enough to attempt to make dogma... but
that sure seems reasonable to me.

-Dan
(Hasta Lunes. Watch out steelies)

"riverman" wrote

accessible only to members


I feel so left out and lonely :-(

Larry L wrote:
"riverman" wrote
accessible only to members

I feel so left out and lonely :-(

No need for all that, apparently I've already invited you
to become a member. I haven't figured out how I did it yet
but I think I'll just leave it alone.

Call me Mr. Sociable. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry