In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it would be helpful to put such links between the characters < and > as in the
example below:
Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it would >> be helpful to put such links between the characters < and > as in the
example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
People telling me that I need to change my client, which works
perfectly well in every other regard, gets tiresome to say the least.
When I post a URL that might break, I invariably include a shortened
URL. If I consider something worth spending time on to post, then I
think it is also worth the extra few seconds it takes to create that shortened URL and make it easy for potential readers to find.
Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it would >> be helpful to put such links between the characters < and > as in the
example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that >doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
That’s why I also suggested using tinyurl.com as a shorter link is
less likely to get broken.
Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it would >>> be helpful to put such links between the characters < and > as in the
example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that >>doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
People telling me that I need to change my client, which works
perfectly well in every other regard, gets tiresome to say the least.
When I post a URL that might break, I invariably include a shortened
URL. If I consider something worth spending time on to post, then I
think it is also worth the extra few seconds it takes to create that >shortened URL and make it easy for potential readers to find.
In message <lu1lofFdt2lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:23:27 on Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
That’s why I also suggested using tinyurl.com as a shorter link is
less likely to get broken.
Of course, by using any url-shortener, you are revealing your browsing history to a third party. Which you may or may not find acceptable.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lu1lofFdt2lU1@mid.individual.net>, at 09:23:27 on Mon, 6 Jan
2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
That’s why I also suggested using tinyurl.com as a shorter link is
less likely to get broken.
Of course, by using any url-shortener, you are revealing your browsing
history to a third party. Which you may or may not find acceptable.
When following links I use Startpage in private mode, and delete the web >information after each session. There isn’t much browsing history to >reveal.
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it
would be helpful to put such links between the characters < and > as
in the example below:
<https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-defense-intelligence-of-ukraine-eliminat ed-the-chief-of-staff-of-the-storm-ossetia-battalion/>
Another method might be to use the services of a url-shortening web
site such as tinyurl.com (other such sites are available).
The above link becomes <https://tinyurl.com/4h8yjwev> which might
stand a better chance of not becoming mangled.
Note that prepending ‘preview’ (without the quotes) to the tinyurl
link (to give preview.tinyurl.com/whateverwasthereoriginally) will
return the original link:
https://preview.tinyurl.com/4h8yjwev
…gives the link original quoted.
HTH
my newsreader doesn't handle UTF-8
which means I get strange characters appearing in the message
text. For example, your message is in UTF-8 and I see these characters.
Sometimes this problem will also appear in the Subject.
UTF-7 would make these messages more legible.
Martin Harran wrote:
People telling me that I need to change my client, which works
perfectly well in every other regard, gets tiresome to say the least.
I wasn't telling anyone to change client, merely explaining that some
clients are better with URLs than others.
When I post a URL that might break, I invariably include a shortened
URL. If I consider something worth spending time on to post, then I
think it is also worth the extra few seconds it takes to create that
shortened URL and make it easy for potential readers to find.
I generally dislike link shorteners, though I do try to make URLs
shorter without fundamentally altering them (e.g. cut the tracking links
out of them)
On 15:52 5 Jan 2025, Spike said:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it
would be helpful to put such links between the characters < and > as
in the example below:
<https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-defense-intelligence-of-ukraine-eliminat
ed-the-chief-of-staff-of-the-storm-ossetia-battalion/>
Another method might be to use the services of a url-shortening web
site such as tinyurl.com (other such sites are available).
The above link becomes <https://tinyurl.com/4h8yjwev> which might
stand a better chance of not becoming mangled.
Note that prepending ‘preview’ (without the quotes) to the tinyurl
link (to give preview.tinyurl.com/whateverwasthereoriginally) will
return the original link:
https://preview.tinyurl.com/4h8yjwev
…gives the link original quoted.
HTH
As we're discussing usability of messages, my newsreader doesn't handle
UTF-8 which means I get strange characters appearing in the message
text. For example, your message is in UTF-8 and I see these characters.
Sometimes this problem will also appear in the Subject.
UTF-7 would make these messages more legible.
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in
Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
A lot of newspaper websites have a unique ID embedded in an otherwise longer SEO-friendly URL
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it would >>> be helpful to put such links between the characters <and > as in the
example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that
doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
There’s no magic bullet here when it comes to unwanted line breaks in URLs, and I did note that putting chevrons around them could help in this regard, implying that it wasn’t a 100% solution. That’s why I also suggested using
tinyurl.com as a shorter link is less likely to get broken.
My view is that chevrons are a good idea, and some posters already include the url and tinyurl in their articles, which helps greatly with the
problem.
Readers can always use the preview.tinyurl.com/whatever facility to check
the actual link that was shortened, if the OP hasn’t already included it.
Pamela wrote:
my newsreader doesn't handle UTF-8
Is 30 years too soon?
which means I get strange characters appearing in the message
text. For example, your message is in UTF-8 and I see these characters.
Sometimes this problem will also appear in the Subject.
Any header field, really
UTF-7 would make these messages more legible.
Except UTF-7 is obsolete and you'll get complaints of e.g. pound symbols turning into +AKM-
Readers can always use the preview.tinyurl.com/whatever facility to check
the actual link that was shortened, if the OP hasn’t already included it.
The moderators have previously asked that if a redirection link is used that >the original link is also included to save moderation time.
On 6 Jan 2025 at 12:09:28 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pamela wrote:
my newsreader doesn't handle UTF-8
Is 30 years too soon?
which means I get strange characters appearing in the message
text. For example, your message is in UTF-8 and I see these characters.
Sometimes this problem will also appear in the Subject.
Any header field, really
UTF-7 would make these messages more legible.
Except UTF-7 is obsolete and you'll get complaints of e.g. pound symbols
turning into +AKM-
I don't think Usenet ever required servers to cope with anything else?
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 10:21:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <62annj1r3cmhvh3b752n61atc47b4a6flk@4ax.com>, at 09:58:37 on >>Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, >>>>>it would be helpful to put such links between the characters < and
as in the example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that >>>>doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
People telling me that I need to change my client, which works
perfectly well in every other regard, gets tiresome to say the least.
When I post a URL that might break, I invariably include a shortened
URL. If I consider something worth spending time on to post, then I
think it is also worth the extra few seconds it takes to create that >>>shortened URL and make it easy for potential readers to find.
It appears that another trick to make long urls more acceptable to
broken reader-clients is to insert a space in front of the leading
chevron.
I don't regard my reader-clients as broken, I regard the sites who
produce such long links as broken.
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 13:33:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <jclnnjt21ump0ojs0h62rua5ctfk9bm1n2@4ax.com>, at 13:08:33 on >>Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 10:21:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <62annj1r3cmhvh3b752n61atc47b4a6flk@4ax.com>, at 09:58:37 on >>>>Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked: >>>>>>Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, >>>>>>>it would be helpful to put such links between the characters < and >>>>>>>> as in the example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that >>>>>>doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
People telling me that I need to change my client, which works >>>>>perfectly well in every other regard, gets tiresome to say the least. >>>>>
When I post a URL that might break, I invariably include a shortened >>>>>URL. If I consider something worth spending time on to post, then I >>>>>think it is also worth the extra few seconds it takes to create that >>>>>shortened URL and make it easy for potential readers to find.
It appears that another trick to make long urls more acceptable to >>>>broken reader-clients is to insert a space in front of the leading >>>>chevron.
I don't regard my reader-clients as broken, I regard the sites who >>>produce such long links as broken.
If you have a reader-client which ignores the relevant and very easy to >>understand rfcs, then I call that "broken".
I work on a different principle. If I want people to read stuff that I
write, then I make reading it as easy as possible for as many people
as possible.
On 6 Jan 2025 at 09:23:27 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Spike wrote:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken, it would
be helpful to put such links between the characters <and > as in the
example below:
Chevrons by themselves are no guarantee, the sender needs a client that
doesn't insert line-breaks in the wrong places ...
Theres no magic bullet here when it comes to unwanted line breaks in URLs, >> and I did note that putting chevrons around them could help in this regard, >> implying that it wasnt a 100% solution. Thats why I also suggested using >> tinyurl.com as a shorter link is less likely to get broken.
My view is that chevrons are a good idea, and some posters already include >> the url and tinyurl in their articles, which helps greatly with the
problem.
Readers can always use the preview.tinyurl.com/whatever facility to check
the actual link that was shortened, if the OP hasnt already included it.
The moderators have previously asked that if a redirection link is used that >the original link is also included to save moderation time.
I won't use url shorteners because of the privacy aspects, and I know
some people are concerned and so they'll religiously never click on them
I believe that choice should be theirs, not mine.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 05:21:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <q95onjt0hhncbcqea1bbcgfcev3tpd7a6a@4ax.com>, at 17:41:09 on >>Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
I won't use url shorteners because of the privacy aspects, and I know >>>>some people are concerned and so they'll religiously never click on them >>>I believe that choice should be theirs, not mine.
Unfortunately, it's rarely an informed choice, so as a one-time
advisor on Internet privacy issues, I don't tempt them to make
the wrong decision.
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 05:21:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <q95onjt0hhncbcqea1bbcgfcev3tpd7a6a@4ax.com>, at 17:41:09 on
Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
I won't use url shorteners because of the privacy aspects, and I know >>>>> some people are concerned and so they'll religiously never click on them >>>>I believe that choice should be theirs, not mine.
Unfortunately, it's rarely an informed choice, so as a one-time
advisor on Internet privacy issues, I don't tempt them to make
the wrong decision.
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened urls.
On 7 Jan 2025 at 08:18:11 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 05:21:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <q95onjt0hhncbcqea1bbcgfcev3tpd7a6a@4ax.com>, at 17:41:09 on >>>> Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
I won't use url shorteners because of the privacy aspects, and I know >>>>>> some people are concerned and so they'll religiously never click on them >>>>>I believe that choice should be theirs, not mine.
Unfortunately, it's rarely an informed choice, so as a one-time
advisor on Internet privacy issues, I don't tempt them to make
the wrong decision.
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened
urls.
But then, of course, we all know that if you have nothing to hide then you >have nothing to fear!
Well, in this particular case I don't think there's any significant difference between posting a URL on Usenet that tells everyone you've
visited it and giving that same information to a URL shortening service. So the OP doesn't, actually, have anything to fear!
There is a potential risk, not to the provider of the link, but to the
person who clicks on it, if the short link redirects somewhere undesirable rather than leading to the same location as the full URL. But there are ways to mitigate that risk, if you really don't trust the person who provided it. You can use the preview version of the link, or use incognito mode on your browser to view it, both of which will minimise the risk of something untoward appearing in your browsing history, or use a VPN if you are concerned about leaking data to the short URL provider or the operator of
the site that it links to. And if you don't trust even those precautions, then simply don't use the link.
Mark
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened urls.
Pamela wrote:
my newsreader doesn't handle UTF-8
Is 30 years too soon?
which means I get strange characters appearing in the message text.
For example, your message is in UTF-8 and I see these characters.
Sometimes this problem will also appear in the Subject.
Any header field, really
UTF-7 would make these messages more legible.
Except UTF-7 is obsolete and you'll get complaints of e.g. pound
symbols turning into +AKM-
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 15:52 5 Jan 2025, Spike said:
In order to avoid situations in which urls in posts become broken,
it would be helpful to put such links between the characters < and >
as in the example below:
<https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-defense-intelligence-of-
ukraine-eliminated-the-chief-of-staff-of-the-storm-ossetia-
battalion/>
Another method might be to use the services of a url-shortening web
site such as tinyurl.com (other such sites are available).
The above link becomes <https://tinyurl.com/4h8yjwev> which might
stand a better chance of not becoming mangled.
Note that prepending ‘preview’ (without the quotes) to the
tinyurl link (to give
preview.tinyurl.com/whateverwasthereoriginally) will return the
original link:
https://preview.tinyurl.com/4h8yjwev
…gives the link original quoted.
HTH
As we're discussing usability of messages, my newsreader doesn't
handle UTF-8 which means I get strange characters appearing in the
message text. For example, your message is in UTF-8 and I see these
characters.
Sometimes this problem will also appear in the Subject.
UTF-7 would make these messages more legible.
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in
Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
On 1/7/25 11:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
Well, in this particular case I don't think there's any significant
difference between posting a URL on Usenet that tells everyone you've
visited it and giving that same information to a URL shortening service. So >> the OP doesn't, actually, have anything to fear!
There is a potential risk, not to the provider of the link, but to the
person who clicks on it, if the short link redirects somewhere undesirable >> rather than leading to the same location as the full URL. But there are ways >> to mitigate that risk, if you really don't trust the person who provided it. >> You can use the preview version of the link, or use incognito mode on your >> browser to view it, both of which will minimise the risk of something
untoward appearing in your browsing history, or use a VPN if you are
concerned about leaking data to the short URL provider or the operator of
the site that it links to. And if you don't trust even those precautions,
then simply don't use the link.
As a slight aside, don't some URLs embed personal information in the URL >itself. For instance a user ID, but potentially also other personal
stuff. So there is an anonymity risk posing long URLs, original long
format or tiny.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened
urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the >data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a >‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data from it >after performing a search, so I’m not sure what ‘leaking’ might be taking
place. However, you appear to have expertise in this area which could >usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
As a slight aside, don't some URLs embed personal information in the URL >>itself. For instance a user ID, but potentially also other personal
stuff. So there is an anonymity risk posing long URLs, original long
format or tiny.
Yes, although I would expect anyone who is concerned about online safety to >be aware of that and strip that off if necessary. But the number of people >who simply copy and paste URLs containing fbclid values (which inevitably >makes them ridiculously long as well as encoding personal data) suggests
that few people care about this.
On 11:56 6 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in
Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
Try: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=173619398000
In message <lu4gsvFt73eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:18:55 on Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>> urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the
data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a
‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data from it >> after performing a search, so I’m not sure what ‘leaking’ might be taking
place. However, you appear to have expertise in this area which could
usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
In message <7rtqnj9r4bkfmdmfl3tsr3gruipl3foegr@4ax.com>, at 18:56:32 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
As a slight aside, don't some URLs embed personal information in the URL >>>itself. For instance a user ID, but potentially also other personal >>>stuff. So there is an anonymity risk posing long URLs, original long >>>format or tiny.
Yes, although I would expect anyone who is concerned about online safety to >>be aware of that and strip that off if necessary. But the number of people >>who simply copy and paste URLs containing fbclid values (which inevitably >>makes them ridiculously long as well as encoding personal data) suggests >>that few people care about this.
No, it means they are naive and are putting themselves at risk.
In message <lu4gsvFt73eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:18:55 on Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>> urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the
data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a
‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data from it >> after performing a search, so I’m not sure what ‘leaking’ might be taking
place. However, you appear to have expertise in this area which could
usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
On 7 Jan 2025 at 18:58:55 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lu4gsvFt73eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:18:55 on Tue, 7 Jan
2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on >>>> Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>>> urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the >>> data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a
‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data from it
after performing a search, so I’m not sure what ‘leaking’ might be taking
place. However, you appear to have expertise in this area which could
usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
Your ISP already knows anyway.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lu4gsvFt73eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:18:55 on Tue, 7 Jan
2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on >>>> Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>>> urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the >>> data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a
‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data from it
after performing a search, so I’m not sure what ‘leaking’
might be taking
place. However, you appear to have expertise in this area which could
usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
I guess it would be hard for the shortner site *not* to know what one is >looking at, otherwise they wouldn’t have anything to shorten.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 19:00:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <7rtqnj9r4bkfmdmfl3tsr3gruipl3foegr@4ax.com>, at 18:56:32 on >>Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
As a slight aside, don't some URLs embed personal information in the URL >>>>itself. For instance a user ID, but potentially also other personal >>>>stuff. So there is an anonymity risk posing long URLs, original long >>>>format or tiny.
Yes, although I would expect anyone who is concerned about online safety to >>>be aware of that and strip that off if necessary. But the number of people >>>who simply copy and paste URLs containing fbclid values (which inevitably >>>makes them ridiculously long as well as encoding personal data) suggests >>>that few people care about this.
No, it means they are naive and are putting themselves at risk.
That's just a more judgmental way of saying that they don't care about the >risk.
On 7 Jan 2025 at 18:58:55 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lu4gsvFt73eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:18:55 on Tue, 7 Jan
2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on >>>> Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>>> urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the >>> data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a >>>‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data
from it after performing a search, so I’m not sure what
‘leaking’ might be taking place. However, you appear to have >>>expertise in this area which could usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
Your ISP already knows anyway.
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:56 6 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
[…]
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in
Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
Try: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=173619398000
That tells me that Mark Goodge made 1170 posts in 2023…
On 7 Jan 2025 08:58:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 7 Jan 2025 at 08:18:11 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 05:21:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <q95onjt0hhncbcqea1bbcgfcev3tpd7a6a@4ax.com>, at 17:41:09 on >>>>> Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
I won't use url shorteners because of the privacy aspects, and I know >>>>>>> some people are concerned and so they'll religiously never click on them
I believe that choice should be theirs, not mine.
Unfortunately, it's rarely an informed choice, so as a one-time
advisor on Internet privacy issues, I don't tempt them to make
the wrong decision.
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more
savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>> urls.
But then, of course, we all know that if you have nothing to hide then you >>have nothing to fear!
Well, in this particular case I don't think there's any significant >difference between posting a URL on Usenet that tells everyone you've
visited it and giving that same information to a URL shortening service. So >the OP doesn't, actually, have anything to fear!
There is a potential risk, not to the provider of the link, but to the
person who clicks on it,
if the short link redirects somewhere undesirable rather than leading
to the same location as the full URL.
But there are ways to mitigate that risk, if you really don't trust the >person who provided it.
You can use the preview version of the link, or use incognito mode on your >browser to view it, both of which will minimise the risk of something >untoward appearing in your browsing history,
or use a VPN if you are concerned about leaking data to the short URL >provider or the operator of the site that it links to. And if you don't
trust even those precautions,
then simply don't use the link.
In message <1s3qnjl3q4tjcfsdbcoaia5jgkjiu0mtn8@4ax.com>, at 11:38:03 on
Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
But there are ways to mitigate that risk, if you really don't trust the >>person who provided it.
Not relevant, the people not-being-trusted are the operators of the
shortener site.
In message <lu5dguF37d6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:27:27 on Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lu4gsvFt73eU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:18:55 on Tue, 7 Jan >>> 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ttjpnjpubvdo2sp3uufdvq7l9gh7oe9tt8@4ax.com>, at 06:56:39 on >>>>> Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> remarked:
[…]
I'd think that what is left of Usenet users nowadays are a lot more >>>>>> savvy about the Internet than the general population.
Clearly not, when they pepper their postings with data-leaking shortened >>>>> urls.
It might expand the discussion and inform people if you elaborated on the >>>> data-leaking aspect of using shortened URLs.
For example, I use Startpage as a general search engine, which has a
‘Private’ browsing facility. Additionally, I delete all web data from it
after performing a search, so I’m not sure what ‘leaking’
might be taking
place. However, you appear to have expertise in this area which could
usefully be shared to everyone’s benefit.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
I guess it would be hard for the shortner site *not* to know what one is
looking at, otherwise they wouldn’t have anything to shorten.
Obviously, but what people dismiss rather airily is the fact that the shortener site is able to build up a profile of what sites you visit,
and conversely a picture of what sort of people visit the site whose shortened link has been published.
On 15:40 7 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:56 6 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
[…]
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in >>>>> Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
Try: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=173619398000
That tells me that Mark Goodge made 1170 posts in 2023…
It says:
"The software doesn't decode UTF8, this is a known bug that is still
awaiting the tuit supply to be topped up but, in the meantime, will
affect the stats."
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 18:57:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1s3qnjl3q4tjcfsdbcoaia5jgkjiu0mtn8@4ax.com>, at 11:38:03 on >>Tue, 7 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
But there are ways to mitigate that risk, if you really don't trust the >>>person who provided it.
Not relevant, the people not-being-trusted are the operators of the >>shortener site.
What evidence do you have that the operators of, for example, TinyURL are >less trustworthy than website operators in general?
After all, every website operator gets a certain amount of your data every >time you use them, even if it's just your IP address, browser UA and the >pages on their site that you've visited.
Websites which provide a search, directory or redirection service get a >little bit more, including the search terms you've used and the links
that you've followed. But that's an unavoidable consequence of the
service being used.
If you won't use TinyYRL because you don't want TinyURL to know which links >you've visited, then neither can you use Google, Bing or DuckDuckGo, for >exactly the same reason.
But if your web usage is restricted entirely to
manually typing or copying and pasting links rather than following them from >a different site then your web usage is also going to be somewhat limited.
Most people put functionality above that level of
privacy paranoia.
When you click on a shortened link, the shortener site knows who you
are, and what you are looking at. That's a data leak.
I guess it would be hard for the shortner site *not* to know what one is >>> looking at, otherwise they wouldn’t have anything to shorten.
Obviously, but what people dismiss rather airily is the fact that the
shortener site is able to build up a profile of what sites you visit,
and conversely a picture of what sort of people visit the site whose
shortened link has been published.
I don’t mean to be rude or offensive, but you seem to have concerns about >privacy. Yet, if one looked over your last 1000 posts to this group, that >would certainly ‘build a picture’ of you. So, what is it that you want to >avoid?
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 15:40 7 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:56 6 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
[…]
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in >>>>>> Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
Try: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=173619398000
That tells me that Mark Goodge made 1170 posts in 2023…
It says:
"The software doesn't decode UTF8, this is a known bug that is still
awaiting the tuit supply to be topped up but, in the meantime, will
affect the stats."
Thanks.
I checked the settings, and UTF-7 isn’t available on my current and up-to-date phone. There are about 40 alternative character sets, would any
of them be more suitable?
On 2025-01-08, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 15:40 7 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:56 6 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
[…]
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats mentioned in >>>>>>> Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
Try: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=173619398000
That tells me that Mark Goodge made 1170 posts in 2023…
It says:
"The software doesn't decode UTF8, this is a known bug that is still
awaiting the tuit supply to be topped up but, in the meantime, will
affect the stats."
Thanks.
I checked the settings, and UTF-7 isn’t available on my current and
up-to-date phone. There are about 40 alternative character sets, would any >> of them be more suitable?
The only suitable character sets for posting to Usenet are ASCII
(which will work everywhere but implies no "special" characters,
forbidding even pound signs, angled quote marks, etc), and UTF-8.
On 2025-01-08, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 15:40 7 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:56 6 Jan 2025, Spike said:
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
There's a separate UTF-8 issue regarding gathering stats
mentioned in Mike Goodge's post below last January.
Message-ID: <lkc6pi116bea18rqgs20l10c5c41i221cq@4ax.com>
Hmm… NewsTap won’t search on message-ID, can you narrow down
Goodge’s post?
Try: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=173619398000
That tells me that Mark Goodge made 1170 posts in 2023…
It says:
"The software doesn't decode UTF8, this is a known bug that is still
awaiting the tuit supply to be topped up but, in the meantime, will
affect the stats."
Thanks.
I checked the settings, and UTF-7 isn’t available on my current and
up-to-date phone. There are about 40 alternative character sets,
would any of them be more suitable?
The only suitable character sets for posting to Usenet are ASCII
(which will work everywhere but implies no "special" characters,
forbidding even pound signs, angled quote marks, etc), and UTF-8.
When I click on it, it says:
"al.howardknight.net doesn’t support a secure connection"
Andy Burns wrote:
Did you alter the http:// to https:// or did your browser do it by itself?
Neither. Chrome by default throws up a warning on all sites without a
valid SSL cert.
This feature can be disabled in settings or using a
browser extension at the user's own risk.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Andy Burns wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Did you alter the http:// to https:// or did your browser do it by
itself?
Neither. Chrome by default throws up a warning on all sites without
a valid SSL cert.
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
[1] I know that SSL does not eliminate the risks but it does reduce
them.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:57:41 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Without SSL, how do you know it is the site you think it is and not a redirected copy?
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find it
hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in news:9m9vnj13tuqplgnpcif57i4mfba7rgifd0@4ax.com:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>You can turn this off (in Chrome) at:
wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Did you alter the http:// to https:// or did your browser do it by
itself?
Neither. Chrome by default throws up a warning on all sites without a
valid SSL cert.
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
Safe Browsing > Advanced > Always use secure connections
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and withWhy should a creator of benign content feel the need to pay extra to
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find it
hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use SSL.
[1] I know that SSL does not eliminate the risks but it does reduce
them.
host a secure site (as many hosting companies do charge extra for this privilege)?
On 9 Jan 2025 11:16:55 GMT, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9m9vnj13tuqplgnpcif57i4mfba7rgifd0@4ax.com:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Did you alter the http:// to https:// or did your browser do it by >>>>>> itself?
Neither. Chrome by default throws up a warning on all sites without
a valid SSL cert.
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
You can turn this off (in Chrome) at:
Safe Browsing > Advanced > Always use secure connections
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
[1] I know that SSL does not eliminate the risks but it does reduce
them.
Why should a creator of benign content feel the need to pay extra to host
a secure site
To minimise the risk of somebody setting up a false copy of it for redirection.
(as many hosting companies do charge extra for this
privilege)?
Where they do charge, it's usually miniscule [1] compare to the cost
of developing and hosting a site let alone the potential cost if
someone does hack it (in terms of impact on reputation, not direct liabilities).
[1] Can also be done free. I use letsencrypt on my personal sites;
works fine.
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:41:28 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 11:16:55 GMT, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9m9vnj13tuqplgnpcif57i4mfba7rgifd0@4ax.com:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>You can turn this off (in Chrome) at:
wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Did you alter the http:// to https:// or did your browser do it by >>>>>>> itself?
Neither. Chrome by default throws up a warning on all sites without >>>>>> a valid SSL cert.
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
Safe Browsing > Advanced > Always use secure connections
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and withWhy should a creator of benign content feel the need to pay extra to
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
[1] I know that SSL does not eliminate the risks but it does reduce
them.
host a secure site
To minimise the risk of somebody setting up a false copy of it for
redirection.
(as many hosting companies do charge extra for this
privilege)?
Where they do charge, it's usually miniscule [1] compare to the cost of
developing and hosting a site let alone the potential cost if someone
does hack it (in terms of impact on reputation, not direct
liabilities).
[1] Can also be done free. I use letsencrypt on my personal sites;
works fine.
That is only free if you discount your time setting it up.
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:34:35 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:57:41 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be
switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Without SSL, how do you know it is the site you think it is and not a
redirected copy?
In this case, provided the redirected site gives you the message you want it may not matter.
On 9 Jan 2025 13:43:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 Jan 2025 at 13:34:35 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:57:41 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 09:35:29 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Obviously a http:// site can't have a certificate.
Which is why Chrome throws up a warning for every site that can't be >>>>> switched to https.
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with >>>>> the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find >>>>> it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Without SSL, how do you know it is the site you think it is and not a
redirected copy?
In this case, provided the redirected site gives you the message you want it >> may not matter.
If it contains malware, it might matter quite a bit.
On 09/01/2025 11:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
The websites don't get my "identity" in any reasonable sense of the word.
Why should a creator of benign content feel the need to pay extra to host
a secure site (as many hosting companies do charge extra for this
privilege)?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
[…]
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isn’t that an argumentum ad populem?
On 09/01/2025 11:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with
the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find
it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information
either to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard
those as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
The websites don't get my "identity" in any reasonable sense of the word.
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything?
Peter Walker wrote:In the case of Howard's article lookup, he runs the public site on port
Why should a creator of benign content feel the need to pay extra to
host a secure site
Or someone using a site on their own intranet:
Webmin (several machines)
Jethro_uk wrote:
Peter Walker wrote:In the case of Howard's article lookup, he runs the public site on port
Why should a creator of benign content feel the need to pay extra to
host a secure site
Or someone using a site on their own intranet:
Webmin (several machines)
80 and his hosting company runs the Plesk admin console for the VPS on
port 443, maybe he'd need to pay extra to run the site on a public IP
port 443?
In message <lua4o9Fqh4kU1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:28:25 on Thu, 9 Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isn’t that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information.
Andy Burns wrote:If it's your box then yes, but if you're paying a couple of quid a month
In the case of Howard's article lookup, he runs the public site on port
80 and his hosting company runs the Plesk admin console for the VPS on
port 443, maybe he'd need to pay extra to run the site on a public IP
port 443?
Surely it's been easy to run virtual https websites on the same IP address for
a decade or two? It seems to be quite a long time since Apache couldn't do this.
In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything?
On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything?
On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those >>>> as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isn’t that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information.
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to >the people') is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or >affirming something is good or correct because many people think so.”
‘I can find plenty of people who do’ would seem to fulfil the requirements >of such an argument.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything?
On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait >around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything? >>>On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait >> around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything?
On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 18:06:31 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 09/01/2025 11:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with >>>>> the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find >>>>> it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use
SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
The websites don't get my "identity" in any reasonable sense of the word.
The main reason why the browser gives an error when you visit an insecure site is that the browser has no way of knowing what data may be being transmitted to and from the site. So it's taking the safe option and warning you every time. You are, of course, free to disregard the warning if you
want to.
More generally, given that there are precisely zero circumstances in which using https will make things worse for the user, but many circumstances in which it will make things better, using https by default can never be the wrong choice.
On 09/01/2025 22:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 18:06:31 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 09/01/2025 11:54, Roland Perry wrote:The main reason why the browser gives an error when you visit an insecure
In message <vloa34$3aqfq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:57:41 on Thu, 9 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 09/01/2025 10:41, Martin Harran wrote:
In todays' Internet world with so many bad actors about [1] and with >>>>>> the availability of low cost and even free SSL certificates, I find >>>>>> it hard to understand why the publisher of any site should not use >>>>>> SSL.
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those >>>> as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
The websites don't get my "identity" in any reasonable sense of the word. >>
site is that the browser has no way of knowing what data may be being
transmitted to and from the site. So it's taking the safe option and warning >> you every time. You are, of course, free to disregard the warning if you
want to.
More generally, given that there are precisely zero circumstances in which >> using https will make things worse for the user, but many circumstances in >> which it will make things better, using https by default can never be the
wrong choice.
I can't choose whether a website I want to access uses http or https.
It's up to the website operator.
It isn't obvious (or easy) to give me a simple choice whether I want to
"risk it".
In message <slrnvo2kri.40n.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 17:05:54
on Fri, 10 Jan 2025, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>> In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9 >>>> Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything? >>>>On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait >>> around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Perhaps you should have a word with the authors of:
en.wikipedia.org/Drive-by_download
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything? >>>On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait >> around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 17:05:54 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>> In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9 >>>> Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything? >>>>On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random
clickbait around? Surely it is something browsers could and should
prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Unfortunately it is easy to insert a button which says it is doing one
thing but in fact does another. Is this a feasible to trick people
into downloading executable software to a dangerous place merely by
doing this?
On 10 Jan 2025 at 18:03:06 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnvo2kri.40n.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 17:05:54
on Fri, 10 Jan 2025, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>> In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9 >>>>> Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download
anything?
On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random
clickbait around? Surely it is something browsers could and should
prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Perhaps you should have a word with the authors of:
en.wikipedia.org/Drive-by_download
Which says that relies on either unwise actions by the user or vulnerabilities in the browser or operating system. It suggests that
if everything is working properly and you don't click on things it
can't happen.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 18:03:06 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnvo2kri.40n.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at 17:05:54
on Fri, 10 Jan 2025, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>> In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9 >>>>> Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything? >>>>>On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait
around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Perhaps you should have a word with the authors of:
en.wikipedia.org/Drive-by_download
Which says that relies on either unwise actions by the user or vulnerabilities >in the browser or operating system. It suggests that if everything is working >properly and you don't click on things it can't happen.
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download
anything?
On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random
clickbait around? Surely it is something browsers could and should
prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Perhaps you should have a word with the authors of:
en.wikipedia.org/Drive-by_download
Which says that relies on either unwise actions by the user or
vulnerabilities in the browser or operating system. It suggests that
if everything is working properly and you don't click on things it
can't happen.
Exactly, the article backs up me rather than Roland.
On 10 Jan 2025 18:52:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 17:05:54 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>wrote:
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Unfortunately it is easy to insert a button which says it is doing one >>thing but in fact does another. Is this a feasible to trick people
into downloading executable software to a dangerous place merely by
doing this?
Not with any current browser, no. Downloads will always go to the downloads folder (wherever that is configured), and can't be arbitrarily redirected to a different location.
The issue with drive-by malware isn't usually downloads, though. If the intention is to attack the local machine, then this is more typically done
by exploiting vulnerabilities in either the browser itself or in plugins added to the browser. But malware doesn't have to be intended to compromise the target machine. Sometimes, all it needs to do is use it. Bitcoin mining Javascript, for example, won't do anything to the target machine other than consume its CPU resources, and will go away when the web page containing it is closed. But it's no less malware for being transient.
On 10 Jan 2025 at 17:05:54 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >wrote:
On 2025-01-10, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2025 at 09:11:38 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>> In message <4626346641.5beb4c15@uninhabited.net>, at 18:11:03 on Thu, 9 >>>> Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Can sites install malware without you volunteering to download anything? >>>>On that narrow point, yes. It's called "drive-by malware".
Then why is that not much more common, given the amount of random clickbait >>> around? Surely it is something browsers could and should prevent?
It is not in fact possible for web sites to do that, in general.
If it was then, as you say, it would happen extremely frequently.
I would imagine most occurrences of such a thing happening are
either people with very old browsers, or people who are tricked
into voluntarily installing software.
Unfortunately it is easy to insert a button which says it is doing one thing >but in fact does another. Is this a feasible to trick people into downloading >executable software to a dangerous place merely by doing this?
In message <lucdroF772nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:16:08 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those >>>>> as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isn’t that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information.
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to >> the people') is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or >> affirming something is good or correct because many people think so.”
‘I can find plenty of people who do’ would seem to fulfil the requirements
of such an argument.
OK, lots of people think the world is round (not flat). Does that
qualify?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lucdroF772nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:16:08 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
Most of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>>>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those >>>>>> as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isn’t that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information.
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to >>> the people') is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or >>> affirming something is good or correct because many people think so.”
‘I can find plenty of people who do’ would seem to fulfil the >>>requirements
of such an argument.
OK, lots of people think the world is round (not flat). Does that
qualify?
A statement that many people believe something is not an argument.
Asserting that the world is round because many people believe it would be >argumentum ad populum.
This does not shed any light on the discussion about information that some >people consider private. I found that too vague and rambling to be of any >interest.
In message <vm0b1n$1501d$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:03:03 on Sun, 12 Jan
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lucdroF772nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:16:08 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to >>>> the people') is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth orMost of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either >>>>>>>> to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those >>>>>>> as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isnt that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information. >>>>
affirming something is good or correct because many people think so.
I can find plenty of people who do would seem to fulfil the >>>>requirements
of such an argument.
OK, lots of people think the world is round (not flat). Does that
qualify?
A statement that many people believe something is not an argument.
OK
Asserting that the world is round because many people believe it would be >>argumentum ad populum.
And as such, automatically bogus?
This does not shed any light on the discussion about information that some >>people consider private. I found that too vague and rambling to be of any >>interest.
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't
consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't
consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:54:13 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981. Does that count?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't
consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:q79dojlcn5vd5oac6827i8lof1akgb89s6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:54:13 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote >>>in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about >>>>whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK >>>government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981.
To part of the UK governmnent ?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:54:13 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981.
Does that count?
Mark
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 20:06:20 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:q79dojlcn5vd5oac6827i8lof1akgb89s6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:54:13 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote >>>>in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about >>>>>whether people in general regard their browsing history as private, >>>>>and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK >>>>government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>>>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981.
To part of the UK governmnent ?
I have no idea who bought it. It's entirely plausible that a government minister might have enjoyed early computer games in their spare time.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981. Does that count?
Mark
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:54:13 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981. Does that count?
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
In message <vm0b1n$1501d$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:03:03 on Sun, 12 Jan
2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lucdroF772nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:16:08 on Fri, 10
Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal toMost of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those >>>>>>>> as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isn’t that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information. >>>>>
the people') is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a >>>>>truth or
affirming something is good or correct because many people think so.” >>>>>
‘I can find plenty of people who do’ would seem to fulfil the >>>>>requirements
of such an argument.
OK, lots of people think the world is round (not flat). Does that
qualify?
A statement that many people believe something is not an argument.
OK
Asserting that the world is round because many people believe it would be >>>argumentum ad populum.
And as such, automatically bogus?
Of course not. A logical fallacy says nothing about the truth of the >proposition it is produced to support.
This does not shed any light on the discussion about information that some >>>people consider private. I found that too vague and rambling to be of any >>>interest.
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't
consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I agree that what people consider private varies and also that it is
likely that most people consider that their browsing history should be >private.
There were various participants in the discussion and my comment was
based on all the comments, not just yours.
Some people, believe it or not, had whole computer game franchises
named after them in the 80's.
In message <q79dojlcn5vd5oac6827i8lof1akgb89s6@4ax.com>, at 17:57:12 on
Tue, 14 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 21:54:13 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote >>>in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about >>>>whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK >>>government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981. Does that count?
Not really. I was writing published articles in 1969 (school tech
magazine) and Nationally in 1973 (Practical Wireless). Not sure when I
first sold software commercially, but it was probably 1978. However
software I'd written in 1977 was used internally by ICL from then
onwards.
In message <960bojts3ql21b1ja0hpj27j1uop0vrtte@4ax.com>, at 21:54:13 on
Mon, 13 Jan 2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:07:19 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote
in <wV6XRn+HARhnFAId@perry.uk>:
In message <vm0b1n$1501d$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:03:03 on Sun, 12 Jan >>>2025, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <lucdroF772nU1@mid.individual.net>, at 11:16:08 on Fri, 10 >>>>> Jan 2025, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to >>>>>> the people') is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a >>>>>>truth orMost of the sites I visit don't involve any private information either
to or from, and it's a nuisance if the browser whinges.
Only your identity and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those
as "private information", I can find plenty of people who do.
Isnt that an argumentum ad populem?
No, because it isn't false that those things are private information. >>>>>>
affirming something is good or correct because many people think so. >>>>>>
I can find plenty of people who do would seem to fulfil the >>>>>>requirements
of such an argument.
OK, lots of people think the world is round (not flat). Does that
qualify?
A statement that many people believe something is not an argument.
OK
Asserting that the world is round because many people believe it would be >>>>argumentum ad populum.
And as such, automatically bogus?
Of course not. A logical fallacy says nothing about the truth of the >>proposition it is produced to support.
Just resembling one of a class of fallacies doesn't mean every example
is in fact a fallacy. See black crows.
This does not shed any light on the discussion about information that some >>>>people consider private. I found that too vague and rambling to be of any >>>>interest.
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about
whether people in general regard their browsing history as private,
and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK
government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I'm sorry 25yrs doesn't impress *you*, but it's a lifetime for many
people commenting on issues like this. We need to write the history and
learn from it, and not repeat previous mistakes. Things which happened
24yrs ago are part of that.
I agree that what people consider private varies and also that it is
likely that most people consider that their browsing history should be >>private.
There were various participants in the discussion and my comment was
based on all the comments, not just yours.
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about >>>>>whether people in general regard their browsing history as private, >>>>>and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK >>>>government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>>>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981. Does that count?
Not really. I was writing published articles in 1969 (school tech
magazine) and Nationally in 1973 (Practical Wireless). Not sure when I >>first sold software commercially, but it was probably 1978. However >>software I'd written in 1977 was used internally by ICL from then
onwards.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek and aimed at Owen, not you. It's fairly >obvious that someone who is older than me is likely to have been involved in >things from before I was. But I think that Owen's point is that willy-waving >about length of service isn't directly relevant to the validity of a
person's argument about things as they are now.
Asserting that the world is round because many people believe it would be >>>>>argumentum ad populum.
And as such, automatically bogus?
Of course not. A logical fallacy says nothing about the truth of the >>>proposition it is produced to support.
Just resembling one of a class of fallacies doesn't mean every example
is in fact a fallacy. See black crows.
Have you now switched to referring to your earlier "Only your identity
and the fact you visited. If you don't regard those as "private
information", I can find plenty of people who do."?
In message <079gojl4l1q7u4a8u5f58h27hjo169uodv@4ax.com>, at 21:16:55 on
Wed, 15 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
I've been working in that field 25yrs and what people do or don't >>>>>>consider private varies hugely. The only comment I made was about >>>>>>whether people in general regard their browsing history as private, >>>>>>and I feel quite strongly that the majority do.
I was doing computer security consulting work for part of the UK >>>>>government in 1985. I was also on the W3C Advisory Committee in 1996. 25 >>>>>years does not impress me whether the field is security or the web.
I was selling software for the ZX81 in, er 1981. Does that count?
Not really. I was writing published articles in 1969 (school tech >>>magazine) and Nationally in 1973 (Practical Wireless). Not sure when I >>>first sold software commercially, but it was probably 1978. However >>>software I'd written in 1977 was used internally by ICL from then >>>onwards.
My comment was tongue-in-cheek and aimed at Owen, not you. It's fairly >>obvious that someone who is older than me is likely to have been involved in >>things from before I was. But I think that Owen's point is that willy-waving >>about length of service isn't directly relevant to the validity of a >>person's argument about things as they are now.
OK, if that 25yrs was between 1960 and 1985, but mine is 1999-2024.
Length of service is a very poor measure of expertise and understanding.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 21:52:59 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Length of service is a very poor measure of expertise and understanding.
Not in the real world where employers "require" x-years experience.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 21:52:59 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Length of service is a very poor measure of expertise and
understanding.
Not in the real world where employers "require" x-years experience.
Have you never heard the stories of employers asking for 5 years
experience of a technology invented last year?
Filtering out the fast learners is not a smart idea either.
A measure being in use does not necessarily make it a good measure.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 21:52:59 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
Length of service is a very poor measure of expertise and
understanding.
Not in the real world where employers "require" x-years experience.
Have you never heard the stories of employers asking for 5 years
experience of a technology invented last year?
Filtering out the fast learners is not a smart idea either.
A measure being in use does not necessarily make it a good measure.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:01:09 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,205 |