Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not trying to be defensive. Sorry if I came across like that.
I am just enjoying a good debate. Trying to be funny about the Yelllow dog comment.
Quote:
I don't see why this had to turn into a contest, I made a legitimate point concerning security and the risks. You made a legitimate point that one can limit such by being careful. Past that, it is a choice people make.
Not a contest. Just a friendly debate. I like to debate.
Quote:
As I said, I never understood why people did those things when one could accomplish it on their own without any of the draw backs. If it is simply for social discussion, a board such as this is plenty for myself and I have no desire to relinquish my identity to a bunch of people I do not know on the internet. /shrug
aDoing it on your own doesn't provide a lot of the functionality that Facebook does. My dear dear friend from California would have never found me on my own personal server. She found me through Facebook and I am so glad she did.
Of course, so did an ex-girlfriend from 1996 that I kind of wish wouldn't have found me. haha
My dear dear friend from California would have never found me on my own personal server. She found me through Facebook and I am so glad she did.
Of course, so did an ex-girlfriend from 1996 that I kind of wish wouldn't have found me. haha
I view it like a high school reunion, the people that I want to stay in touch with, I am, the rest of those clods and clowns...... meeh not so much.
And what are these reunions about, not seeing old friends, but being seen, having your teeth done, loosing weight, borrowing or renting a much better car than you normally drive, all in some silly attempt to impress someone that really doesn't give a damn about you, or you them.
FB is the same, just as phony, mostly to try and impress others that don't really give a damn about you, aside from some morbid curiosity.
Every bit of this post is unsubstantiated, and completely circumstantial. It all goes back to making your account viewable by friends only, and trusting those who you accept as friends. If someone you don't know can't see the information, they can't assess it or harvest it or use it.
Now, agreed, for the most part, if someone really paid attention to the privacy settings and configured them correctly (which the first link discusses as originally being confusing in its configuration), it would likely be private, though for the bug that was found as explained in the second link did allow some applications to bypass this.
The point I was making is that Facebook is a social site and its main focus at inception was simply to create a social network, not a secure internet application for the storage of private restricted access information. So, using it for such would be a great risk (and has been for many) considering that point.
This is why internet chat programs were so vulnerable. They were not designed to be secure communication applications and were not held to the same level of development security standards to which for instance a banking application or any other professional private application would require. So even though they attempted to keep things as such secure to an extent, it was never their focus, their goal or main purpose of their application.
It is not being paranoid pointing out this fact, just as it is not paranoid that I do not pass private information even through internet chat programs to which I have not secured with encryption protocols. It is simply a fact of the issue and my comments as to the secure nature of the site is completely supported in foundations of application and internet security knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyn
It is clear that you have your opinion, and I have mine. I don't believe there will be a compromise.
Absolutely, but the part of my response that is opinion is simply that I do not see why anyone would find any use of such a site considering the many other means to obtain the same level of functionality within their own control. The part that is not an opinion is the facts I have been discussing which concerns basic application development and security features in and how it concerns Facebook. That is not opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyn
The way I see it, is that if you put information about yourself online, only you can prevent that forest fire. It is irrational to blame facebook for this. This thread is blaming facebook for not being secure. I stand to say that I believe this statement to be false. It is quite secure. If I decide to post things about myself to random people I don't know, there is obviously a mistrust issue there with MYSELF, no one else.
Not really true. Unless you completely control the application and have authority over not only its user settings, but its development, distribution, storage as well as the protocols and features to which it communicates, then no... it is not only you that can prevent such, but also the diligence and focus of the application developers, network engineers, site owners, etc... You have no control over such and you can not insure that they have your security in their best interest or priority.
How secure Facebook is now, I have no idea. I would have to have access to their servers and network to do a security audit to make that determination. I however do know of many incidents to which they have had security problems. Now don't get me wrong, there is always a potential for a security weakness in any application that is available online (there is even such however small for some that are available through extreme restricted access), so I am certainly not trying to claim that someone will be secure by using other means, even that which I suggested.
What I have said is that Facebook was not created with this focus and while they may eventually achieve such means of being fairly secure , their initial design did not cater to such focus and so they will need to rewrite their entire application with security as its primary focus to achieve the level of security that applications which were designed primarily for such secure communication are (they may have already, I really don't care about the site so I don't keep updated on it enough to know).
My position as such as simply been that I do not understand why people would use such with the tools and control available to them through other means to which would allow them the same capability without that level of visibility of target to which a site as such has. That was my initial response and the basis of my "opinion". The rest has been simply stating facts concerning the security and development aspects of such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyn
While that could happen, I don't believe it will. Lawsuit city, baby
The result may be unintentional due to a bug or poor implementation, law suit "maybe" if it was found to be intentional, but have you read their EULA? As I stated, they are not a site under the same controls and regulations to that which a banking site or other professional institution is. People may very well be without as such occurs due to this fact and the reasonable position that their site is a social network, not a secure institution under the policies to which most institutions that hold private information are regulated under state and federal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyn
Now of course facebook could be hacked (Hi, Playstation Network), sure, I would never say it couldn't, because it has and it will again and again. What man creates, man can reverse engineer. However, I will not live my life fearing such miniscule chances. I'll take those chances and I'll have my facebook It is a tool I use daily to connect with those I cherish in an efficient and delightful way.
No need to fear, I fear going nowhere on the internet (I haven't had a virus, rootkit, trojan, or malware/adware in years), though I am prepared with proper tools and knowledge to do such. While I do not expect people to achieve the level of experience and knowledge I have in day to day use, there is a certain application of caution that can be applied to limit ones attack surface. This includes not using social sites that are not designed and regulated with such security measures and limiting the amount of information you place on the internet as feasible.
Again, to reiterate, my only opinion on the matter is why anyone would use such when one can achieve the same results as Facebook and have a much smaller attack surface and a higher level of security of their information as it concerns such activities while fully within their control.
Now some use it completely anonymous such as many do in this forum, which would be fine (other than picking a few details I may discuss in various posts, people have no idea who I am or where I am specifically located nor any real referencing ability to ascertain such), but many use it for far more and if one is doing such, they are simply a target waiting.
I am not trying to be defensive. Sorry if I came across like that.
I am just enjoying a good debate. Trying to be funny about the Yelllow dog comment.
Not a contest. Just a friendly debate. I like to debate.
Oh, ok, sorry if I took offense, just seemed that we were heading down the road of such with the mentions of paranoid and the like. Though you may be a bit correct, it is just that I have worked in the industry for many years and know the level of ability and threat to which exists even at levels to which many are not aware. While it may seem I come off as "paranoid", it is kind of like how a police officer acts around people after they have been on the job for a while such as defensive postures and positions to those around them as a matter of habit. It just seems natural to me to reduce my attack surface as it concerns the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine
aDoing it on your own doesn't provide a lot of the functionality that Facebook does. My dear dear friend from California would have never found me on my own personal server. She found me through Facebook and I am so glad she did.
Of course, so did an ex-girlfriend from 1996 that I kind of wish wouldn't have found me. haha
Oh, I don't discount the benefits of such a presence. You are correct that being available as such does allow long lost friends and the like to catch up to you, but it does have its draw backs as you mentioned.
I view it like a high school reunion, the people that I want to stay in touch with, I am, the rest of those clods and clowns...... meeh not so much.
And what are these reunions about, not seeing old friends, but being seen, having your teeth done, loosing weight, borrowing or renting a much better car than you normally drive, all in some silly attempt to impress someone that really doesn't give a damn about you, or you them.
FB is the same, just as phony, mostly to try and impress others that don't really give a damn about you, aside from some morbid curiosity.
So very true, when you are young you think everyone cares what kind of car you drive, what kind of clothes you wear etc....eventually most wise up and realize nobody really gives a rats rear what kind of car you have or who made your shirt or at least the people that grow up realize that. At most, they look in curiosity just to see if you made something of yourself or if you turned out to be a deadbeat. lol
par·a·noi·a
–noun
1.
Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2.
baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
While you could easily establish such with the first definition (out of context of principal and meaning), I could also establish such by any means of one taking precautions for any event or issue.
So, we must apply the second aspect of the definition. in order to establish some validity to such a statement.
That is, for someone to be considered "paranoid", their position must be "excessive suspicion" of the motives of others. To put it into proper context of the issue, someone who makes efforts to avoid placing their persona in publicly available sites that specifically showcase their persona is not that of "excessive suspicion" of the motives of others because statistically speaking, they are valid in their objection to such publicity.
There is nothing wrong with those who find such public venues as dangerous and subject to attack, there is no paranoia in such arguments, it is valid and rational reasoning based on statistical and reasonable occurrence.
Now those who wish to take such risks because they "personally" do not see it as an issue are free to do so, and for most of us, we will not object or condemn them for such.
But to even attempt to make the argument that someone who does not spread out their attack surface on the internet as "paranoid" is simply not absurd, but plain stupid.
I can't argue with that incredibly well written post.
I lay down my quill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
