Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on April 18, 2011, 12:46:44 pm
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377479/Obama-administration-unveils-national-online-ID-system.html
Oh boy, sure glad we have the government helping free us from our current system of, quote;
" half-remembered passwords jotted down on post it notes and based on pets and mother's maiden names" which apparently is "not enough."
-
I wonder, do identity thieves have a lobby now?
-
:banghead:
::EDIT::
Although the system is not yet up and running, the Commerce Secretary said a number of leading computer companies, including Microsoft, IBM, the Secure ID Coalition, and Wave Systems Corp, are developing ways to make the system most efficient and effective.
:banghead: :banghead:
-
They like to dress it as something to help us, but in the meantime.. Its a tool that can be used for true internet censorship. Not just a incompetent idea, sadly, but something that could very well be, or become, rather serious.
-
They like to dress it as something to help us, but in the meantime.. Its a tool that can be used for true internet censorship. Not just a incompetent idea, sadly, but something that could very well be, or become, rather serious.
Serious as in: The end of the free web?
That was the most mentioned worry everytime personal Internet IDs came up... i.e. if they can ID you, then can charge you (just a minor step to link a CC). Say hello to microtransactions for... well everything.
"Thank you for using google, your search bill for your last search is 0,05 $."
-
Yeah Mikes, I do believe it will incrementally cause the end of the free web - probably a more enclosed system to replace it, so that internet will still be used by large corporations, governments, military, etc, but the public would slowly start to see sites shut down and more and more control be put in place.
At least that's my expectation of what could happen, so it's probably better to take this particular thing more serious rather than another sign of incompetence.
-
you know herra told me that this whole government mind control thing is just paranoia
-
Never mentioned mind control, so thats offtopic, but my opinion on that, is that its unprovable either way, while a interesting subject.
*Late edit: Might have been a bit too harsh. It's just rather off-topic, would prefer to stick to this subject here.
-
Never mentioned mind control, so thats offtopic, but my opinion on that, is that its unprovable either way, while a interesting subject.
:blah:
-
Time to break this out again:
(http://kiserai.net/gallery/d/931-1/do-not-want-dog.jpg)
-
I hope this stupid thing gets shutdown
-
i can imagine the government throwing billions at this, only to have a term change cut its budget and leaving us with a half-finished system that will be hacked in a week. there are some situations where applying politics to solve problems will result in a bigger mess than the problem itself.
-
I imagine they think people who don't want NetID's must be terrorists or hackers or pirates. :aargh:
-
Oh no, this is terrible! Obama sure is becoming a horrible despo - wait, what is this?
The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace will be voluntary, but some computer experts believe it is inevitable that most computer users will had a single ID for transactions in the future.
Well I'll be damned!
-
All they have to do is convince the big ISPs to mandate user IDs upon registration and voila- you can track everyone who uses the internet.
Somebody needs to, like, start hacking **** and shutting down the government ID database when that happens.
-
All they have to do is convince the big ISPs to mandate user IDs upon registration and voila- you can track everyone who uses the internet.
Somebody needs to, like, start hacking **** and shutting down the government ID database when that happens.
No.
The government could do that even without the ID system. And that's not what the ID system is for. If you were paying attention to the article, you can tell this is an attempt to bolster internet commerce by removing consumer fears of identity theft. Nothing about this has anything to do with censorship - or even piracy.
-
Its only going to make identity theft easier.
-
No.
The government could do that even without the ID system. And that's not what the ID system is for. If you were paying attention to the article, you can tell this is an attempt to bolster internet commerce by removing consumer fears of identity theft. Nothing about this has anything to do with censorship - or even piracy.
But it's boring when you try to introduce facts into the conversation.
It is reasonable to suppose, though, that this would happen eventually in the private sector. Don't Facebook, Twitter and a few other sites already have a common login?
-
i kinda think its somewhat inefficient to have every server on the internet manage its own user logon and password list. it is certainly exploitable. (http://www.xkcd.com/792/) centralized credential services would be good if they had good security. i certainly dont want the governments running it though. also various websites would no doubt support completely different credential providers. can certainly see ms competing with google competing with yahoo, and a hodgepodge of lesser known companies all providing credential services, and websites that would support none of them, providing their own logon system. you would still have a pile of passwords and user names to memorize and store.
you could solve the problem with password managers, which of course that puts them in places that can be hacked or would be difficult to backup. perhaps its about as secure as writing down your passwords on a post it note and hiding it somewhere. perhaps it would be better if people didnt know their passwords at all. let the password management software generate a 128 byte password out of random data when you create an account, and have the system automatically generate a new password every month or so.
this still isnt something id let the government do. if anything id amend the tcp/ip protocal stack with protocols for exchanging and managing credentials for websites transparently to the user. make it so the only piece of information you need to give when signing up for an account is your user name. let the browser or password management service spew out a hash for identification. the user would be kept ignorant of this hash, and the storage of this hash would be highly encrypted. password hash would be updated regularly (such as after every 50 log-ons). reminders and automated recovery of forgotten passwords would be abolished. these only make it easier to get into the account. essentially the user is eliminated as a point of failure, leaving only the local password file and the credential service, or web host.
when it comes right down to it the real cause of all internet security problems boil down to human stupidity. people perhaps lack the discipline to manage their security. perhaps when all these logon standards were adopted the developers were short sighted and never considered that people would have to remember a hundred of them. perhaps were securing things that dont need so much security. you definately need more security in your bank webpage than in your facebook account. having the 2 share the same logon information is bat**** insane. perhaps some of these services need to stop asking so many questions. does photobucket really need to know my full name? does youtube really need to know my address. i sometimes fill those blanks with useless data. the whole system does need a mass rethinking, it goes against human nature and the inherent fallibility of human memory.
-
Ultimately, however...
I do not see the need for a government regulated password system. If that warrants calling me short-sighted, so be it. But look at it this way - we have a government which is already deep, deep in the hole with respect to finances, and they're... creating a new institution? No matter how minor, this is just stupid in that regard...
Especially seeing as (a.) it does not satisfy any immediate needs, only a precieved one, (b.) is untested and will require further expenditure on an already over-streched system to operate, and (c.) inevitably will be abused by third parties, and more than likely the government itself. There are certainly counterpoints to this, but ultimately is there anyone here who seriously puts so much faith in the government to approve of this?
I do recall signing a petition against this... Unfortunately, it might take more than things like that to stop something like this from going through.
-
Ultimately, however...
I do not see the need for a government regulated password system. If that warrants calling me short-sighted, so be it. But look at it this way - we have a government which is already deep, deep in the hole with respect to finances, and they're... creating a new institution? No matter how minor, this is just stupid in that regard...
Especially seeing as (a.) it does not satisfy any immediate needs, only a precieved one, (b.) is untested and will require further expenditure on an already over-streched system to operate, and (c.) inevitably will be abused by third parties, and more than likely the government itself. There are certainly counterpoints to this, but ultimately is there anyone here who seriously puts so much faith in the government to approve of this?
I do recall signing a petition against this... Unfortunately, it might take more than things like that to stop something like this from going through.
the government really has no buisness developing this kind of technology. they would put more effort into the bureaucracy to manage it than into the technology development itself. id rather it be done by a private company, like google. and while the government might spy on you, so too could the company. really theres no way to get around that. but it is a problem in need of a better solution.
i do however recognize a problem that exists not in the individual management of user accounts, but in the accumulation of multiple independent (or centralized) accounts online for everything from government and banking sites to cheezburger network. i merely state that its impossible for the human mind to remember 10s or even hundreds of unique user names and passwords. especially when you enforce password complexity and regular updating of passwords. when the human memory fails, we use software or even the writing down of passwords. you might limit the amount of information you need to keep. like only use one user name on all sites, or only remember a pool 10 secure passwords and rotate them as needed. the mere referencing accounts to other accounts (such as using an email address as a login name) adds to the problem.
if the user has a set address pool and you know the password to say their battlenet account so you go to their email and try the same password and it might work, then you can try to go into their bank account and the password might not work, but since you have access to their email, you could probibly go through and mine personal information from accounts youve gained access too and do a password recovery at their bank and clean out their account. these are all the security holes i can see.
websites want too much information
too many unique sequences to remember
too much linking of accounts
automated password recovery
dependance on email addresses
dependance on 3rd party systems
large number of sites requiring logon data
now you can probibly get around those with password management software, but thats a locally configured system with no defined protocols to talk to a web site requesting logon information. what i say is make it easier for that system to communicate with local password management software. so when you go to a website than needs your login data, it will send a request to your computer for that information, then a service on your computer provides those credentials, and you are logged in automatically. the service automatically assures password complexity and can quickly respond to requests for password updates. you only define the communication protocols, not their usage. this ensures that you may use whatever software you want to use, and the web host only uses what software they want to use. and this allows the 2 pieces of code to communicate despite possibly coming from different sources. point is you eliminate human nature as a source of the problem.
-
websites want too much information
too many unique sequences to remember
too much linking of accounts
automated password recovery
dependance on email addresses
dependance on 3rd party systems
large number of sites requiring logon data
This can be solved by using only one or two passwords on multiple sites. If you want to complain about security, well...how is one mega login better?
I don't really get too many arguments for this, simply because it's a solution looking for a problem. If you have THAT much of an issue remembering login and passwords...why not just use the same one for different sites?
-
in my mind this is simple. it's not the business of the government to help me (or anyone) remember their passwords. therefore they should not. even if it ends up NOT being abused, there's just no logical sense in creating something with that much potential to be for almost no actual benefit.
and about private companies doing similar stuff, they can fk off too. i'm REALLY starting to hate google. those aholes wanted my PHONE NUMBER in case they ever need to "recover" my YOUTUBE account. first of all, i signed up for a youtube account, not google. the only reason i even have a google account is for whatever spammy stuff i need to use it to do or for things i want to have absolutely NO connection to any other bit of my online "identity." so the next one of these non-google sites that wants to force me to link to a google account is simply loosing a user. something i might end up not having the option to do if this comes via the government.
-
There's a potential here to get royally screwed if someone hacks your global internet ID account. You don't just lose access to Steam or WoW or whatever it is you use - you lose access to everything until you get it sorted. In the mean time the culprits can use your internet ID to buy themselves something nice through ebay.
I know, I know, they'd make it "secure". I have yet to see a system that's totally secure and would much rather have separate ID's for separate stuff.
Also, it's usually a bad idea for people who know very little about a technological resource such as the internet and can barely use Google to make global calls like this.
-
This won't be a problem.
Politicians create system.
Hackers hack system.
Hackers buy things using politicians credentials
Politicians close system.
Massive waste of money by the government but then what else is new. :p
-
Keynesian economics aside. . .why would now be a good time to dump more money into a program that while hypothetically a good idea, practically is not if only because itd be run by bureaucracy? where the money for this one comin?
-
nah, do something, but dont centralize it and for the love of satan dont let the government run it.
i mostly just recognize the problem, and the only idea i can come up with is to make the website talk to the users password manager software and never tell the user what their password is. essentially eliminate the user as a point of failure.
-
Problem is, this effort is just duplicating one that already exists. It's called OpenID (http://openid.net/). I'd rather use that than anything that is backed by a single source.
-
As long as they call it the Eggs in One Basket Act of 2011, I'm down for it.
-
and about private companies doing similar stuff, they can fk off too. i'm REALLY starting to hate google. those aholes wanted my PHONE NUMBER in case they ever need to "recover" my YOUTUBE account. first of all, i signed up for a youtube account, not google. the only reason i even have a google account is for whatever spammy stuff i need to use it to do or for things i want to have absolutely NO connection to any other bit of my online "identity." so the next one of these non-google sites that wants to force me to link to a google account is simply loosing a user. something i might end up not having the option to do if this comes via the government.
(i agree)
-
Er... But YouTube has been owned by Google for a long time now.
-
Err... So?
-
The point is that your YouTube account was already tied into Google for a good two years, which is why I never understood any of the *****ing about finally merging the two account bases. :p
-
my account WASN'T tied to a general google one. whether or not the same company owns the youtube account is irrelevant. if i want to use youtube, i should be able to sign up for youtube, not have to go through gmail.
-
Well no, it wasn't previously, but the option to tie them was there from the day Google bought YouTube. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that maintaining two entirely-separate user databases doesn't make much sense. And really, who didn't have a Gmail account that they could hook up to YouTube beforehand anyway?
-
It's less about that than Google wanting my phone number (and tracking my location without my permission).
-
Like YouTube didn't do that before Google bought them.
-
i dont like this new thing with the phones though, cell phones are evil ****ty devices and i will never own one. the only phone we have looks like something from the battlestar galactica, and i dont use it. we often keep it unplugged. google pulls that **** on me, im gonna go find another email provider.
-
It's less about that than Google wanting my phone number (and tracking my location without my permission).
I don't remember the phone number being a mandatory piece of information, and I'm not sure what you're on about with the location-tracking.
-
"Listen my fellow coughdumbtardscough I mean Americans, we're gonna ID you but the huge amount of computers on the basement of the pentagon the size of several football fields, will not be used to track every little thing you do and know who to bring for water-boarding weekend at CIA HQ under the patriot act and so many other excuses of Home Land Security, I swear to you that we'll not fukc you over even if we have the total impunity and power to do it so, really, c'mon why don't you believe me?"
-
"Listen my fellow coughdumbtardscough I mean Americans, we're gonna ID you but the huge amount of computers on the basement of the pentagon the size of several football fields, will not be used to track every little thing you do and know who to bring for water-boarding weekend at CIA HQ under the patriot act and so many other excuses of Home Land Security, I swear to you that we'll not fukc you over even if we have the total impunity and power to do it so, really, c'mon why don't you believe me?"
It's funny because that might happen.
i dont like this new thing with the phones though, cell phones are evil ****ty devices and i will never own one. the only phone we have looks like something from the battlestar galactica, and i dont use it. we often keep it unplugged. google pulls that **** on me, im gonna go find another email provider.
This reminds me of the Captain in charge of my 200-level AFROTC course back at Embry, who did not personally own a cell or a home computer I believe. But do not be decieved, that man was full of win! Role models are great...
-
It's less about that than Google wanting my phone number (and tracking my location without my permission).
I don't remember the phone number being a mandatory piece of information, and I'm not sure what you're on about with the location-tracking.
Saw this on Popular Science today;
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/your-iphone-automatically-tracks-where-you-go-and-when-security-experts-say
-
Oh. Dear. God...
-
Yeah, terrifying, we're all going to be put into the system and geolocated by Big Brother as part of a master plan by the same federal government that can't even coordinate policy between its own intelligence agencies.
The future's pretty scary right guys, Apple sure is doing a good job as a catspaw for the reptilians
-
inorite?
-
Saw this on Popular Science today;
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/your-iphone-automatically-tracks-where-you-go-and-when-security-experts-say
I can't read it, the browsers on the uni computer are being automatically redirected to the Australian page. Not that I have an iPhone (or any smart phone), but I was interested in reading it.
-
Yeah, terrifying, we're all going to be put into the system and geolocated by Big Brother as part of a master plan by the same federal government that can't even coordinate policy between its own intelligence agencies.
The future's pretty scary right guys, Apple sure is doing a good job as a catspaw for the reptilians
I love to play the "let's take everything literally so as to disprove any possibility of misuse of a system" game. Of course I'm not implying Apple is Big Brother or is trying to steal your dataz zomgz and that they're gonna hunt you down and kill you.
What I meant was that Apple, like all US corporations, is mandated to reveal your information if requested by the government with a search warrant. Fine, if you can come up with a legitimate use for this (such as revealing where you are when you call 911, which honestly I think is the only proper use), then that's great. But do you really think that it's acceptable that Apple collects this data, secretly without telling it's users (which indicates a failing on corporate law), and now the government has the power, through a warrant, to track where you are 24/7 (which is a holdover from many warrant rights and legislation that does not but nevertheless applies to data such as this).
-
Saw this on Popular Science today;
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/your-iphone-automatically-tracks-where-you-go-and-when-security-experts-say
I can't read it, the browsers on the uni computer are being automatically redirected to the Australian page. Not that I have an iPhone (or any smart phone), but I was interested in reading it.
That's weird. Here's the article text:
British security researchers have figured out that iPhones keep track of where their owners go, saving data to the device and uploading it to a user’s computer when the phone is synced with iTunes. The data includes the phone’s latitude and longitude and is timestamped to the second, all of which is recorded in a hidden file--which is very much not secure.
This could theoretically be useful for anyone interested in knowing where an iPhone owner spends his or her time — advertisers, employers, spouses, parents.
Technology, Rebecca Boyle, apple, gps tracking, Internet privacy, iphones, location data, location-based services, privacy, surveillance“Apple have made it possible for anyone from a jealous spouse to a private investigator to get a detailed picture of your movements,” according to researcher Pete Warden.
To be clear, such a snoop would need access to your phone or computer and a way to extract and refine the data. It is not sent to Apple nor any third parties, as far as the researchers can tell — it’s just stored on an individual user’s devices. But it is apparently not very difficult to extract the location data from a user's computer.
Warden and Alasdair Allan say they tried to find similar location tracking code on Android phones, but could not find anything. “We haven't come across any instances of other phone manufacturers doing this,” Warden tells the Guardian.
Given Google’s penchant for location tracking and mapping, the alarm is perhaps surprising — Google’s “Latitude” app lets users see their friends on a map, for instance. But Latitude requires that users actively choose to track their location information; in this case, the user is unaware of the data collection. The Guardian reports that Apple did not comment on why the file was created or whether it could be disabled. If you upgrade to a new phone, the file is transferred to that next-generation device, which the researchers say means the data collection is not accidental.
Warden — who has previously worked for Apple — and Allan created their own app that finds the hidden file among the stored backup files on a Mac and turns it into a map. If you don’t care to visualize your travels, Warden explains how to find the file on his website.
The researchers believe the location data is obtained by triangulating the phone’s position against the closest cell phone towers, which uses less battery power than GPS. It also explains why some of the data is incorrect, as triangulation is much less precise than GPS. But the data is still alarmingly accurate, tracking your history as an iPhone owner through the months and years. Forgot that you took that trip to Boston last summer? Your iPhone didn't.
It’s not clear how this information would be used, but there are several possible explanations, including targeted mobile advertising, synchronization for location-based networks like FourSquare, understanding commuter habits, and so on.
Allan found the file while the pair were working on how to visualize mobile data, having already collaborated on other data-visualization projects including a radiation map for Japan. At first the researchers weren’t sure what it was, Warden explains on his website.
“After we dug further and visualized the extracted data, it became clear that there was a scary amount of detail on our movements,” he writes.
There is no real way to disable this logging at the moment, though you can encrypt your data to make it harder to read once it's synced to your computer. This is a big enough problem that we expect Apple will respond at some point, so we'll keep you updated if and when that happens.
-
Thanks. :)
What I meant was that Apple, like all US corporations, is mandated to reveal your information if requested by the government with a search warrant. Fine, if you can come up with a legitimate use for this (such as revealing where you are when you call 911, which honestly I think is the only proper use), then that's great. But do you really think that it's acceptable that Apple collects this data, secretly without telling it's users (which indicates a failing on corporate law), and now the government has the power, through a warrant, to track where you are 24/7 (which is a holdover from many warrant rights and legislation that does not but nevertheless applies to data such as this).
Yeah, that's not the sort of thing you want handed to the government without your knowledge. That sort of function shouldn't be hidden away and unable to be turned off (like you said with the "failing on corporate law") - heck, it probably shouldn't exist at all by default. At least with Latitude you have to conciously select to track your location.
-
A constitutional right should be if it ain't already, I have the right to be completely anonymous in my household. That would include the cellular phones acting like microphones even if you have turned it off, the trick USA Gov. without democratic consultation or even telling people about it, it had to be a leaked info. Is about what everyone needs, privacy in their homes.
-
by their nature, broadcast transmissions (like the ones cell phones make) can be triangulated with multiple receiver locations (which is part of the communications infrastructure). so while your transmitting your transaction is logged at the tower(s) that receive your signal. based on your tx power as measured at the towers, its just a little bit of math (were talking a couple lines of code here) to figure out where you're at in relation to the towers, and since the towers locations are known, its easy to determine your exact location at the time of the call. its not rocket science, its basic trig and algebra. cell companies have many reasons to log this information. generate usage statistics and identify weak points in the grid so they know where to build more towers. this data is also used to determine billing. the fact that they dont encrypt these logs make it a massive security hole. and that is why i dont own a cell.
-
this data is also used to determine billing.
That, and when you get a cell phone and a number, you're assigned to a specific mobile switching center where all your calls are processed and sent to other numbers. When you enter another switching center's sphere of influence, it registers that number in something called the visitor location register, and automatically labels that phone as "roaming".
-
Does anyone still get charged for roaming?
-
this data is also used to determine billing.
That, and when you get a cell phone and a number, you're assigned to a specific mobile switching center where all your calls are processed and sent to other numbers. When you enter another switching center's sphere of influence, it registers that number in something called the visitor location register, and automatically labels that phone as "roaming".
this is the kinda thing i meant.
-
Found a decent article that I have to at least partially agree with - It's strange many people don't consider this a problem.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-secret-location-tracking-2011-4
And yes, the governments are inept, stupid and outright comically absurd, but they still have very real torture centers,detention centers, and jackboot type thugs that get off on supressing you and dehumanising you. Also, this sets the stage for a very competent, calculated government (While the chance of that are low) to completely supress a population and then start stealing all their money, savings, pretty much anything, just watching the monitors to see who objects, to send their thugs to.
I mean, TSA is inept yet they still manage to get huge populations to radiate themselves in body scanners and degrade them without anyone defending themselves.
-
Glad I don't have a smartphone to be honest. Proud of the fact that my mobile phone is actually a mobile phone (an old barely functional Nokia 4-year old mobile phone, but a phone nonetheless).
-
youre still emitting a signal, that is being picked up at multiple towers, and your tx power and timestamps are still in their databases, you just dont have your own local copy. face it triangulation is a ***** :D
-
youre still emitting a signal, that is being picked up at multiple towers, and your tx power and timestamps are still in their databases, you just dont have your own local copy. face it triangulation is a ***** :D
Uh, why? It can also be used to locate people trapped in the wilderness and find missing and kidnapped people. What's so wrong about anyone knowing where you are, anyway?
-
youre still emitting a signal, that is being picked up at multiple towers, and your tx power and timestamps are still in their databases, you just dont have your own local copy. face it triangulation is a ***** :D
Uh, why? It can also be used to locate people trapped in the wilderness and find missing and kidnapped people. What's so wrong about anyone knowing where you are, anyway?
that was not my point. this was mainly in response to snail's post. the point is if you're trying to stay off the radar by using an old model phone, you will fail. by simply broadcasting you are giving away your position. yes this information can be somewhat useful, it can also be exploited. i only point out the nature of the technology. i prefer to stay off the grid, so i dont own a phone at all.
i should also point out that this does not apply only to cell phones, you can do the same with any kind of radio transmission. this is how the fcc finds and fines pirate radio stations, and how the military can direct artillery to your position based on your transmission.
-
Privacy concerns aside, part of me has always been amused by the fears over cell-phone tracking, because I figured that was sort of part and parcel with the concept of a cell phone. You're carrying around a device whose primary purpose is to send and receive radio signals...and you're worried about someone being able to pick said signals up? :p
-
i dont really give a **** about privacy. my main issue with cell phones is not that they can be tracked. in fact there are many reasons i dont carry a phone.
and here they are, somewhat in order
1: cost. i cant have my phone bill cut into my booze, dope, and hooker fund. also i got to do less important things like eat or pay rent.
2: its trendy. i define my existence by identifying trends and doing the exact opposite.
3: i hate people. cell phones are for social animals, i am anti social and have no need for one.
4: the technology sucks. i dont want to use some closed source piece of hardware that is locked to a cell provider, and i dont want to pay larger sums for unlocked phones that providers do not support. further more you cant really call a phone a phone anymore. its essentially a less than standard risc machine with an internet connection and some voip thrown on top of it. stop mismarketing them.
5: i generally avoid carrying expensive electronics on my person. in case i decide to do something stupid like walk in front of a bus, or get shot at by drug dealers/the police. i cant have my tech getting smashed now can i.
6: i am cazy and do not need a reason.
7: i never did like talking on phones, especially in public.
8: i would rather talk to my invisible friends.
so as you can see i have many valid reasons not to use phones, and i guess the last one is you can be tracked. comes right down to it, you want privacy, you got to not put out so much information. people who care about invading your privacy only pay attention to the big blips, if you have the smallest blip on the scope, you will likely get overlooked.
-
If you have a facebook profile which you keep updated, you have no business complaining about lack of privacy in the first place - as you already demonstrated it doesn't really matter to you :P
-
If you have a facebook profile which you keep updated, you have no business complaining about lack of privacy in the first place - as you already demonstrated it doesn't really matter to you :P
which i do not.
-
I don't either, **** Facebook.
-
So nice to see there's actually more people like me who won't go near the thing.
-
I went there
THen I stayed for a while
Then I read their new security policies...
So I first I was like :blah:
And then I was like :warp:.
-
il even yell at my sister if i catch her logging on to her facebook on my computer. shes always installing intrusive browser plugins on moms computer, and i would probably throw her out the window if i catch her desecrating my computer in that way.
-
Yeah, no kidding, Nuke. I build some majestically protected PC for people and a few months later they managed to break it, demanding repairs or a new one. Said people got the PC for free as they're family members.
Anyhow, I'll only use Twitter and Facebook and such for my new job, meaning in a professional fashion, and probably pseudo-true. I don't want the whooole world to know what i do, what i think, what i want at all moments of the day. It'd be boring anyway: "JC @12:45, testing level 00001" "JC @12:52 fixing level 00001, testing 000002" and so on.
-
Meh. If you don't want certain people to see what you post, change the security to exclude them. If you really can't have or could not bear them seeing it, don't post it.
-
or you can smash every computer you see with a stick, on your way to go live in a cave in the woods. every time the tech industry does something i dont, like this seems like an even more acceptable option.