Thanks Scott
Jez, feeling better
On 16 February 2015 at 16:59, Scott Gomez <sgomez.baja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All this paranoia about Google I find to be highly amusing--from those
> using Windows (and even more so--older versions of Windows) and, to a
> lesser extent, OS/X. There's nothing that Google will get from your use of
> Chrome or other Google product that doesn't already leak or get easily
> hacked from Windows itself, or wasn't often requested by--and almost just
> as often provided voluntarily to--Apple.
>
> Much of the data collected is public record, anyway, and was always
> available to anyone interested enough to find out. It required only a trip
> to the library or appropriate government office. Or as anyone who ever had
> a mail subscription to a magazine quickly found out, purchase of a mailing
> list. I knew how to use the reverse phone number look-up directory
> available at my local (and tiny!) public library by the time I was in
> middle school.
>
> At least Google are quite straight-forward about what information they
> collect, and alone among the three, provide a means of extracting most all
> of your data that may be stored with them should you desire to do so, via
> their Data Liberation feature.
>
> Google has even decided publish to details of security holes left
> un-patched for more than 90 days by OS vendors, including itself. A move
> which arguably provides at least a means for end-users to be aware that
> there is an issue that could affect them. This elicited howls from both
> Microsoft and Apple recently when they couldn't manage (or didn't care) to
> fix their issues in time.
>
> I'd rather deal with an organization that at least makes some attempt to be
> honest and somewhat open about their intentions and the potential pitfalls
> of use, rather than find out, as a bunch of celebrities recently did, that
> my very personal data which I had "safely stored in iCloud" was easily
> "liberated" by hackers.
>
> None of these companies or their on-line solutions are even close to
> perfect. But as long as end-users prefer to pay little to nothing for the
> services available, they are going to have to reconcile the fact that those
> companies must monetize those services in some fashion. One can always do
> as I have often done in filling in so-called "required" information: just
> flat-out lie. The worst that you risk by so doing is loss of a free
> account. Make up names, addresses, phone numbers, whatever. Use throw-away
> email accounts. Consider using Tor or other means of obfuscation.
>
> I'd venture that for some 80+ percent of users that it won't help anyway,
> because in my experience over decades is that most of them have such
> utterly useless passwords or other account security (even when there is
> means provided for better by the vendor!) as to be quite easily compromised
> anyway.
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >> Google does all the updates for me.
> > >
> > >How comforting!
> > >
> >
> > How absolutely gut-wrenching scary!
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
> > - Hunter S. Thompson
> > --
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> >
> >
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|