As in Cajun Clickers Computer Club @yahoogroups.com? whoooboy. You just fed me to the wolves, dude! <:-D BTW, in response to another post I read here, I visited clickers.org to look for an IE-only warning. Didn't see it. Used Mozilla 1.0. Am I missing something?
-- -j John Beamon On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, John Hebert wrote: > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:50:55 -0700 (PDT) > From: John Hebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [brlug-general] IE un-Security > > Wow. Too good to keep here in [email protected], so I > forwarding this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where > politically incorrect rant is encouraged. > > John Hebert > > --- john beamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I want to take this one step farther. There is a > > sales mentality that > > computers CAN be bought, plugged in, and on the web > > in 10 minutes. > > Therefore, they SHOULD be bought, plugged in, and on > > the web in 10 > > minutes. I find this inherently incorrect and > > bordering on arrogant. > > > > We do not require computer users to know two cents > > worth about their > > machines or their safe use. We require waiting > > periods, licensing, > > training, and legal registration for the purchase or > > even use of guns, > > cars, motorcycles, heavy equipment, arc welders, > > etc, but nothing for > > computers. Even now, computers and "security tools" > > like GPG and basic > > encryption are being criminalized as tools of > > terrorists, when the truth > > is closer to "terrorists are safer, more > > knowledgeable users of basic > > computer functions than most Windows users". > > Frankly, I applaud their > > steps taken toward privacy and discretion and smart > > computer use; when was > > the last time the US government cracked a terrorist > > network or fed it a > > virus in a Word document? MS commoditized and > > simplified the entry-level > > OS and released it into the wild. It is generally > > speaking insecure, > > buggy, and exploitable. Common users are generally > > naive about its > > workings and its safe and controlled use in public > > (networked). By > > engineering remote control software into XP, MS has > > shown that they > > continue to prefer and promote a naive user base and > > centralized boo-boo > > management. > > > > I disagree strenuously, on grounds economic, social, > > political, and > > functional. I believe that users with increased > > clue would trade messages > > and data in portable formats, not shiny ones, so > > that they can be reached > > from any commoditized machine in any library, home, > > or educational > > institution. Anything from an industrial dumb > > terminal to a library PC to > > a college Mac should be able to read email and > > browse the web with at > > least some functionality. I believe that more > > clueful users would rather > > keep their private info private than let MS into > > their machine or let > > their cd player (Media Player) report their > > listening habits back to a > > vendor. I believe that users would feel safer about > > themselves and the > > world at large if they had the basic intellectual > > tools to avoid every > > virus-infected email attachment that gets sent them. > > Understand, please, > > that the vast, VAST majority of viral traffic is > > instigated by curiousity, > > not by brute force. More people open unkown email > > attachments, after the > > years of Melissa and Nimda and HappyWorm, than are > > infected by > > sophisticated autoexecuting binaries in their > > unopened mail spools. Those > > sophisticated worms ARE a problem, but they are the > > Ebola virus in a world > > where millions die for not washing their hands > > before they eat. > > > > The native faculty of Windows to execute any virus > > that comes down the > > pike from what SHOULD -- by all measures functional > > and reasonable -- be a > > text-only environment is a problem. An out-of-box > > problem. It was > > mentioned earlier that a new user on an out-of-box > > machine is not > > necessarily "insecure", and I disagree to the very > > last iota. XP comes > > preinstalled with the ability to turn on your PC's > > mic, call home to > > Microsoft, and allow internet access to your > > filesystem, all without your > > permission or even knowledge. Don't leave home WITH > > it. I am running one > > XP box right now, months after it has been > > proctologized and patched into > > delirium. I'm still behind a firewall, and I still > > read all my mail in > > either PINE or Mozilla, in plain text, > > thank-you-very-much. > > > > I'm not an OS bigot; I've got four copies of Windows > > installed in my > > house, three of them dual-booted with Linux. I am, > > however, placing the > > blame for this "security" problem where it belongs, > > the official practice > > of turning loose self-aware "appliances" that run > > programs out of text > > documents and expose raw network sockets to every > > process on the box. > > Users who want mail and web should get a non-root > > account on a box that > > runs Mozilla or Opera or Netscape. I believe > > Windows would be a better > > place if it allowed an Administrator privilege set > > for doing system > > maintenance, but not as a desktop login. Login as > > Joe, try to run a > > system-critical process, and get an su-style popup > > that requests an > > Administrative password. It serves the purposes of > > awareness and > > prevention and makes people realize there's more to > > driving a car than > > turning on the radio. > > > > -- > > -j > > > > John Beamon > > > > On 3 Jul 2002, mat branyon wrote: > > > > > Date: 03 Jul 2002 12:26:51 +0000 > > > From: mat branyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [brlug-general] IE un-Security > > > > > > just bc someone is ignorant of certain matters > > does not mean that they > > > should be sheltered. if they want to use email > > and chat, and do all the > > > other fun things that the net has to offer, they > > need to realize that > > > security is a big issue, and they need to take > > care of it. just bc i > > > dont know how to work on cars doesnt mean i > > shouldnt have an alarm > > > system or change the oil myself. im not saying > > they should be able to > > > resolder sockets back on their motherboard, but > > they should know the > > > basic maintanence skills to keep thier computer > > running. > > > > > > on the other hand, if they could all do that... > > there would be a lot > > > fewer jobs for computer techs (like me). > > > > > > the moral of the story is... people need to learn > > to think on thier own, > > > even if it might cost me a decent job... :( i > > would much rather a world > > > less full of ignorance > > > > > > --mat > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 14:42, Doug Riddle wrote: > > > > I want to wade in on this one, because I can see > > both sides. > > > > > > > > I'll use my father as an example. He is very > > intelligent, a former > > > > general of the US Army, captain of industry, > > etc, etc. He is not, by > > > > any stretch of the imagination computer > > literate. He can use a PC > > > > and send and recive emails, but if the screen > > changes colors, he > > > > calls for help. To him, a computer is a > > "blackbox." At almost 70 > > > > years old he has no interest in trying to learn > > the workings of said > > > > box, he just wants to stay in touch and talk to > > some old friends. He > > > > should be able to do that in reasonable safety. > > He understands there > > > > are security issues, and has accepted the fact > > that his ignorance > > > > will occassionaly lead to his PC being wiped > > out. He counts on > > > > keeping a low profile and a decent virus scanner > > to protect him from > > > > most problems, and it will. > > > > > > > > I, on the other hand run some domains, manage > > some > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > http://sbc.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
