Thieving posties
in [UK Mac]
|
From: The Older Gentleman on 25 Jun 2010 13:52 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > After all, would you trust anyone with your confidential data? I have to trust the bank staff. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 14:35 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > But I'm curious about human behaviour, about why people should be so > > > paranoid about 'security' when they don't need to be, and yet in endless > > > cases about which we repeatedly read, keep emails that incriminate them. > > > > That's not stupidity, just bad understanding of risk. > > And the naive belief that, well, I deleted this mail, so it's gone. Nothing naive about that if you've dropped the actual email in question into the trash and then securely deleted it. Admittedly, my email app gets horribly confused if I *do* do that, but... Or if you've deleted the email and then rebuilt the mailbox - at least that way it's no longer in a live file, even if it is still on disc. Rowland. (using Mailsmith, which does things strangely these days). -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 14:35 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > After all, would you trust anyone with your confidential data? > > I've covered that specific point in my post; I don't have any > 'confidential" data. I have data, but it's not confidential. <shrug> I don't think that can be true. > > What concerns me is that you characterize my behaviour as `increasing > > paranoia about meaningless `security'' > > Precisely. Precisely what? You really are rather baffling at times, Peter. And while I'm at it: why can't you have a normal decent conversation without getting abusive towards me? > > There's obviously no possible way of engaging you in a discussion of > > this point, since you clearly have no conception of proper computer data > > security. > > I can't understand your conception of it. Of course you don't - you've made no attempt to find out what I mean, nor shown any willingness to try to understand. > Why do you imagine that you > *need* 'proper computer data security'. I don't feel that I need it; I'm > interested to know why you think you do. I'm interested to find out why you do not understand the obvious need to take basic data security precautions such as making backups, using a Firewall, and not visiting dodgy Websites without protection, and so on. It's very obvious that without proper computer data security, as good as that of ink on paper if one can manage it (a nearly impossible spec, I'll admit), one can hardly trust that his computer will be any use at all tomorrow morning. I've shut down a Mac to find that it was in need of (software) repairs next time I booted it up - frequently. It's why I'm so hot on pre-emptive maintenance - it's because I've learnt that if I don't do it, I'll get bitten by a flaky computer. This happens for real: it is not paranoia. Obviously, you've never met anything like that beacuse nothing like that happens in Ceresoleland, but out here in reality it's real. It seems blindingly obvious to me that given the fragility and vulnerabilty of computer data stores to oh so many things that can wipe out your data, failing to take precautions against data loss caused by well understood and normal mechanisms for losing data - such a failure is just plain stupid. Of course I do not attempt to achieve 100% security - but I do take reasonable precautions and use reasonable care. It seems to me that you're just ignoring the problems and hoping that they don't bite you. I'm making sure that they don't bite me. The waters are shark infested - you want to ignore the fact, it's your lookout. The problem to my mind is that you're making no attempt at all to understand me, instead simply aiming at insulting me and belittling me, which I find inexplicable. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 14:42 The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > Wrongo! > > > > Yes, naturally you state that. > > Yes, I do, because you made no such statement and now you're trying to > wriggle. [snip} Yes, quite. A perfect example of your behaviour, as I outlined it in my previous post, which stated: "Yes, naturally you state that. Your behaviour is very odd - whatever point I make, you snip the actual details, sneer at me, and state that I am certainly wrong based on nothing more than your personal judgement. You do make an interesting psychological study, you know that? I really cannot get my head round your behaviour, I really can't." And you snipped pretty much all of that, leaving one short phrase which you decided to comment on with annoying personal abuse, taking my words out of context, because you like being annoying. All this - all these personal remarks from you, all this intention to wind up a mentally ill person just to take cruel pleasure from watching him howl - all this on a technical newsgroup for technical discussion. As I implied before: you're *weird*, you are. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: The Older Gentleman on 25 Jun 2010 16:52
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > all these personal remarks from you *What* personal remarks? You made an incorrect statement, and since it was pointed out, ahve tried to wriggle out of admitting you made it. That's all. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |