Jude 2

Facebook draws criticism for privacy changes

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fe7709a-e5bd ... ck_check=1

Privacy groups are assailing Facebook after the world’s largest social networking website made changes to its privacy settings this week.

The changes allow users to apply more specific privacy settings to the content they post on the site. But many of the default settings mean that, unless users follow a prompt to go in and change their settings, they end up sharing most of their information with everyone on the internet.

I'm just curious: what is it people are posting on Facebook that requires so much security??

I post pix from church, iPhone snapshots, random musings... no military secrets, no charge card numbers.

My name, face, cell number and multiple email addresses are all over the internet. Big deal.

Makes me wonder if a lot of people are dodging warrants or bill collectors; calling Dog the Bounty Hunter.

zactly PG. though I don't necessarily like the idea of having my photos be used for other things without my permission, viewing tem is no biggy. just like posting a picture or a post her eat J2, the search engines index it all.

there is security settings that is changeable in FB. i use them. the other half of the security issue is all the "apps" that are there and available. seems that many of my friends click on everything and all the apps, polls, quizzes, etc. and once you do and you click "allow", do thos epeople realize what they are allowing, though? access to your friends lists profile information etc.

i wonder how many people have been doing this for a long time and have never gone in teh applicaiton settings edit them and remove all the ones they don't want. (this is platform independant - not a Wintel issue). it's no wonder they get their passwords hacked, etc. most will also click on emails with links too.

I asked folks at work if they click on links that are sent to them in emails. people that I though should know the difference. "yes", was the general answer. wow.

RamboPreacher wrote:I asked folks at work if they click on links that are sent to them in emails. people that I though should know the difference. "yes", was the general answer. wow.

Rambo, are you saying that it is dangerous to ever click on a link in an e-mail?

Tracy wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:I asked folks at work if they click on links that are sent to them in emails. people that I though should know the difference. "yes", was the general answer. wow.

Rambo, are you saying that it is dangerous to ever click on a link in an e-mail?

(I am not Rambo, but...) I seldom click email links, unless I am expecting someone to send me a link, they are from a really trusted source; just too much stupid, malicious junk out there.

Pastor Gary wrote:

Tracy wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:I asked folks at work if they click on links that are sent to them in emails. people that I though should know the difference. "yes", was the general answer. wow.

Rambo, are you saying that it is dangerous to ever click on a link in an e-mail?

(I am not Rambo, but...) I seldom click email links, unless I am expecting someone to send me a link, they are from a really trusted source; just too much stupid, malicious junk out there.

exactly. it takes some tech-savy to be able to see a email at it's "code" level. even ones that seem to be "From:" someone you know, may not be. for about half a dozen years or so, and especially last few years - the best option is to just say no. never click any link in any email. if it's from a subscription or from a "trusted" person or site - still don't click it.

you should have the address, type it in your web browser if you want to get there. While a bit easier to see a phony link, it is not something that many will take the time to do, unfortunately. so the best option is to practice safe-hex. just say no, and be abstinent when it comes to clicking links in emails.

in the 80's when I predicted that every home (in America) would have more than one (personal) computer and have centralized, online networking, it never crossed my mind that there would be people that would be so malevolent. I am not that naive any more.

there is always risk. the truly most trusted way to be rid of malevolent code, is to leave your computer turned off. Mac users do have a less-risk factor, but the reasoning for that is being reduced daily (popularity is increasing), and so it is self-deception to think that even the almighty mac can't be "infected". (my first encounter with a "virus" was a code that on my AppleII (modified to a IIe). it overrode the code that controlled the fly-back on the built in monitor and literally smoked it; but not after burning in the phosphor of the screen some "curse words".

anyhoots, just ramblin now. I highly suggest that you don't click links in emails.

Tracy wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:I asked folks at work if they click on links that are sent to them in emails. people that I though should know the difference. "yes", was the general answer. wow.

Rambo, are you saying that it is dangerous to ever click on a link in an e-mail?

There are way too many bogus and malicious sites out there. I never click on links. In fact, if an email has FW in the subject line it is deleted without ever being opened.

Paully_44 wrote:

Tracy wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:I asked folks at work if they click on links that are sent to them in emails. people that I though should know the difference. "yes", was the general answer. wow.

Rambo, are you saying that it is dangerous to ever click on a link in an e-mail?

There are way too many bogus and malicious sites out there. I never click on links. In fact, if an email has FW in the subject line it is deleted without ever being opened.

Wow.. I forward business stuff and information all the time to my clients.
We send to groups and back and forth.. it can have FW: RE:[[[]]] so many times that it's ridiculous.

Can't imagine that being a limitation!

RamboPreacher wrote:Mac users do have a less-risk factor, but the reasoning for that is being reduced daily (popularity is increasing), and so it is self-deception to think that even the almighty mac can't be "infected". (my first encounter with a "virus" was a code that on my AppleII (modified to a IIe).

Oh my.. how did this descend from a Facebook Security settings issue to a pc and mac issue?

Let's be brutally honest here on your above risk. It's nil to absolutely zero risk to date and you can frame it however you want to justify your os of choice.. but if average basic email, web user would switch.. they would experience zero to nil risks.

Sorry ma'am that's just the facts.

As it relates to links from spoofing email sites.. always hover over the link.. it if states one thing and upon inspection sends you somewhere 180 different.. it's probably junk.

But a friend sending you a FW link to a funny card or image.. absolutely. It's only the banking, ebay, paypal, facebook, or login based sites where you could be hijacked do you avoid.

Clear as mud? Back to Facebook's lax security changes now.

I NEVER click on links and NEVER open emails with FWD in them. If i were forward something I removed that from the subject line. I usually ask or send an email in advance of fwds and make a comment so that the person knows it is legit.

Jinjer