AJRS wrote:
> Information about privacy on the Internet: Cookies, Referrer Fields, adware,
> etc.
>
>
> Privacy is a big topic, and different people have very different feelings
> about it. And people are not necessarily consistent. For instance, Google's
> Eric Schmidt famously saidthat anyone who wants privacy is probably up to no
> good. Yet an article about Mr. Schmidt's divorce quotes "a source" saying
> that he and his wife are both very private.
>
> One way to help clarify privacy issues might be to divide people into 3
> groups:
>
> Group 1: People who don't care about privacy and don't see what the fuss
> is about.
>
> . Group 2: People who are concerned about privacy, but don't want to put a
> lot of effort into protecting theirs.
>
> . Group 3: People who worry about privacy and do what they can to protect
> theirs.
>
> If you use free webmail (GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo) or free "social
> networking" services (Facebook, Google+, MySpace) then you are probably in
> Group 1 or Group 2. You don't worry about privacy, or at least don't care
> enough to do anything about it. The information here will not be of interest
> to you. If you are in Group 3... this webpage is for you. If you are in
> Group 3 and you also use some of the services above, then... this webpage is
> really for you.
>
> It's probably safe to say that the vast majority of people are in Group
> 2. They are somewhat concerned about privacy, but they like convenience.
> They like free services. If privacy means losing any of that then they'd
> rather not think about it. The ostrich approach.
>
> The fact that most people take an ostrich approach goes a long way to
> explain the current landscape in terms of online privacy. Big online
> companies are increasingly making big money by exploiting private
> information in a big way. Protecting online privacy, or even gaining a basic
> understanding of the issues, is becoming increasingly complex. And most
> people are ostriches. The result is a kind of "Don't ask, don't tell"
> scenario. People avoid looking under the surface of ad-supported online
> services and those services, in turn, are careful to keep the surface
> looking unsuspicious.
>
> In February, 2012 President Barak Obama's people released a
> fancy-looking Privacy Bill of Rights, made to look like an official
> government document, but saying nothing substantial. Concurrently, major
> browser makers said they will support a "Do Not Track" button for
> browsers... Maybe... Well, actually, not really. Facebook's approach has
> been described as "asking for forgiveness rather than permission". They
> exploit their members, to cash in on targetted advertising, as much as they
> feel they can get away with; then they backtrack when there's a backlash.
> All of this generates vague sounds of progress, and that's enough for most
> people. That's really all the ostriches are asking for.
>
> *
>
> More - much more - here: http://www.jsware.net/jsware/privacytips.php5
>
> JS

Good example of a 'Phishing' site from a recent email!

http://suddenlink8.bugs3.com/

--
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."