Open Facebook Sandwich

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

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote

but I think I'll just leave it alone.



(Blush) Gosh Ken, wow


Um, I went back to my newly created page and see nothing ...yet ... about
your invitation

BUT,

they sure are making a gallant effort to 'target' ads towards the tiny bit
of info I provided

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


Call me Mr. Sociable. ;-)




I never got an invite. You must have invited the only other Larry
Linthicum on FB .... he's also from California .. no connection

I found the ROFF group and snuck in uninvited ... hope that isn't the thing
Myron feared most

Thus far I've found that FBroff detracts from this ROFF, for me, in a way I
find interesting.

Since I've never met any of you here, much of my pleasure in the place is
similar to forming a mental picture of characters in a novel. Seeing
the photos on FBroff is much like going to the movie based on that novel and
feeling the casting director did a crappy job G ...... few seem to have a
visual image that matches the one I've conjured up.

Being a 'loner,' I've semi intentionally avoided posting any pictures with
me, even on my website. Looking at the one I put on FB, I don't look
nearly as grumpy, old, and curmudgeony as I really am G ..... ah well

On Jan 10, 1:21*am, "Larry L" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote



Call me Mr. Sociable. ;-)

I never got an invite. * *You must have invited the only other Larry
Linthicum on FB .... he's also from California .. no connection

I found the ROFF group and snuck in uninvited ... hope that isn't the thing
Myron feared most



LOL. This whole 'invite' think is creeping up on epic humor, and I'm
the only one enjoying it. That aside comment about Ken inviting folks
was absolutely random...had nothing to do with anything and there was
no precedent behind it. Just tossing Ken's name into the fray for no
reason whatsoever. Funny to watch him get that big-eyed "who me?"
innocent face about it, and stumble around in confusion about it for a
few days, then see it spread to you. I suspect in a few days, everyone
on ROFF would be pelting Ken for invites to something or other... lol

In any case, I'm not worried about uninvites being on FB-roff; the
more the merrier. I just don't want the search and spambots to be
given tacit approval to do anything with my personal site (pictures,
posts, etc) by default because I'm a member of an open group. There
are enough weirdnesses with FB security settings that I don't trust
this particular one.

And merely not giving FB any info does not protect you. Pictures of
you that OTHERS post become part of the mix, and you have no control
over that. FB also recently had an application that monitored your
computer for Amazon.com and eBay purchases, and let your friends see
what you had recently purchased! You only had about 20 seconds to opt-
out of this before it was installed, then you lost the option of
deleting it forever. It raised a huge furor online before FB removed
it: people saw it as only being a heartbeat away from FB posting your
recent website search histories, and sites you frequent.

I have to be especially paranoid about identity theft: those who know
my lifestyle (folks who have lived internationally like JR, etc)
understand. I am the ultimate guardian of my own security, so my
preference is not to be on an open group. But I'll be around, and
lurking on FB-roff, and posting if I can figure out how to do it as a
non-member.

--riverman