-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Royce Souther wrote: > Your tactics are indeed well preferred amount tech-no savvy people like > the LUG members but the general public are not as sophisticated and they > tend to make stupid mistakes like visiting phishing sites. What I > recommend to the general public, what I demand of my customers and what > I practice myself require different skill levels. > This should not be. What it says to me is that we have all failed. We have not managed to implement the lessons from 10 years ago (email is still not widely secured, electronic signing is still not being used and so on) before wildly rushing ahead to the next big thing. Twitter is learning the hard way, which is silly since they are now implementing solutions to problems that were know 10 years ago. I mean seriously, input validation was something that was important in 1996. It was important in the pre-web days. If Twitter does not get it right, that should really say something about our educational processes and our priorities.
> I don't think the general public could be trusted to hack their own > hosts file, most sheeple don't even know they have a hosts file. > The general public is a lot smarter than you think. The problem is that they do not care. That was our job, to get them to care, and we all failed. > Any way. My point is. Google has a free tool that analysis web site > traffic in great detail. I am using it on a site where I do not have > access to the code and they offer it as a free tool. I don't mind if > Google knows who is visiting my site. I do want Google to know about my > site so every thing I have seen about this free and well designed tool > is good. > Like everything that is "free", there is a cost it just is not always a cash price. The cost in this case is privacy and accuracy. I personally do not allow google analytics in my browser, and since a number of other people do not either, I cannot trust the numbers that it presents, which kind of undercuts the value of the thing. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkn2WMUACgkQwRXgH3rKGfP/pgCgmMY1JZdjZypFmEnnNBK1i4sK B84An0O+NSZOA8kal9QradVA/YJRvCzr =UWeQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
