On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:23:58PM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote: > But still, we should be extremely firm in warning users about the use > of M$IE and the insecurity of it. I personally think that even > ALLOWING users to view fproxy beyond a rejection page with links to > other browsers one can get is a stretch. I think that a good > compromise would be to put up a warning page where the user has to > type "I do know that Micro$oft Internet Explorer is an insecure piece > of shit" as specified by the page into a text item in a form (the $ > would be mandatory) and then press a button to actually use fproxy, to > keep people from simply clicking through without paying real serious > attention to the warning. :)
Er, no ;-) I don't like the attitude I see every now-and-then which suggests that we should prohibit users from doing stuff that we believe might be bad for them. Rather, the correct approach is to clearly explain the risk to them, but allow them to take that risk if they are willing to do-so. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020905/e077767c/attachment.pgp>
