About privacy on the forum (page 4)

Kent

Kent and his merry followers seem to have made privacy their latest crusade and unfortunately they have decided to act in a completely irresponsible manner IMHO.
The forum software uses cookies to remember a users login details and can also be useful for identifying duplicate accounts. it is not used for anything sinister and cannot be used to identify someone - all it gives is an indication that a computer is being used by more than one username

Since you attack me and my "merry followers" - can you please tell me what I wrote that contradict your own statemnent? And what did I say that you feel proper to call "irresponsible"?

Kent

Simon

Kent: you really don't think I should have a problem with you posting instructions that would help potential trouble makers circumvent measures designed to protect us?

I'm sure you would not be happy if someone gave out instructions on how to make running your web-sites more difficult would you?

Given some of your past activity I just see this as yet another way for you to attack and undermine this board. I think you would love for a lot of trouble makers to come here causing a nuisance and putting people off visiting ... perhaps going somewhere else instead ... your site perhaps? Either that or you are trying to foster some 'FUD' with regard to privacy issues. I may be wrong but that is the impression I get.

JanH

Simon,

Do you know the expression "security through obscurity"? Do you know what it means? Do you know what security experts think about this philosophy? Why do you think they are wrong?

I find it amusing you belittle Kent for revealing information that is known to any knowledgable computer user, but you think nothing of making sure that everybody on this board finds out by posting this thread here! Few threads on the WOF forum are read more than 100 times; that particilar thread has now been read 760 times, no doubt mostly due to your advertising. This thread has now been read 1000 times, and by the exact audience you want to be kept in the dark about basic IE security.

You may be telling the truth when you assert that you wanted this information kept secret, but obviously it is much more important for you personally to launch an attack on Kent!

The facts of the case speaks for itself. Kent revealed this information in the context of allowing two different persons to share a computer and post on this forum. Anyone can go to the thread I linked and read that for themselves. That people like you and Xander are unable to understand it is undoubtedly more due to your hatred for Kent than a lack of understanding simple English. I guess there is nothing the rest of us can do to convince you otherwise.

A final word of advice: You'd do yourself and your own forum a lot of favours by not running a personal vendetta against Kent. He was prepared to get on with life. I guess he still is. But now you seem to have made this an obsession, one shared by some of your favourites here, and I can easily see this turning very ugly. You and the puppies should follow your own advice and let it go. And they should wash their noses before it gets too disgusting to watch.

- Jan

Prisca

A final word of advice: You'd do yourself and your own forum a lot of favours by not running a personal vendetta against Kent. He was prepared to get on with life. I guess he still is. But now you seem to have made this an obsession, one shared by some of your favourites here, and I can easily see this turning very ugly. You and the puppies should follow your own advice and let it go. And they should wash their noses before it gets too disgusting to watch.
- Jan

Sounds like a threat to me. Is that how you intended it to be, Jan?

SpiceItUp

JAN---Ive got nothing against you personally....but you are the one that posted the thread off Kent's site. I myself never even knew about IT until YOU posted that vital piece of information. Then you accuse Simon of harboring vendettas.

IMO all Simon was doing was a little venting about why he was hyping up security..then you posted more ammo for the posters over here to really see what is going on.

WHY?

Spice

PS----that did appear to be a threat you just posted...what gives? I have always liked your posts then you go and do something like this!!!

JanH

Spice,

Yes, I posted the link to the thread Simon was talking about, so everybody could see that Simon was wrong. Simon made a direct, malicious accusation, and that was the way to answer it. Remember it is Simon, not I, who believe that site security should be based on an ignorant user base. What he did by starting this thread was counter-productive to his own stated goal.

No it wasn't a threat. I have known Kent for a very long time. I know that he's way above petty fights like the one Simon now accuses him of picking. Kent has no rubber bullents in his arsenal, only nukes. Simon should simply let him go, as he has said repeatedly that he is about to. In this, Simon acts like a habitual smoker who insists he indeed quits smoking every day.

- Jan

Prisca

Kent has no rubber bullents in his arsenal, only nukes.

Oh purleeese

SpiceItUp

I find it amusing you belittle Kent for revealing information that is known to any knowledgable computer user, but you think nothing of making sure that everybody on this board finds out by posting this thread here! Few threads on the WOF forum are read more than 100 times; that particilar thread has now been read 760 times, no doubt mostly due to your advertising.

This is what I meant....you actually accuse him of posting the link..when you are the one who did..that is what my question was about. Again..I am an avid computer user and know my way around..however (and this may show my ignorace but I don't care) I have never read my operating book and I also did not know about disabling cookies...as far as I knew you needed coookies to go on most websites. This disrupts your theory that many people know about this. I would be curious to find out how many did not know about that until Kent posted it and you gave us the link. You in effect were the one to further hamper Simon's efforts. In fact this thread probably would have fizzled out if it weren't for that...but I digress. I am not trying to start a fight but am merely expressing my views as a third party and this is what I saw.

peace,

Spice

JanH

Spice,

If you don't know how to disable cookies you are indeed grossly ignorant about IE. If you browse the Net regularly without ever having looked at the security settings you put yourself at risk.

If Simon cared so much about security, and not about just attacking Kent, he could with one line of code set up jwd to require cookie support. He knows this, and I know it. You obviously don't.

The rest of your rant I have already answered.

- Jan

SpiceItUp

If you don't know how to disable cookies you are indeed grossly ignorant about IE.

Or maybe I just don't need to hide from who I am...maybe that why. and yes..thanks for your concern of my safety risks. Believe it or not whether or not you can disable cookies is not a good way to determine ignorance...because if thats true..then why should Kent have even posted it in the first place. If it is sooooo obvious to all non ignorant pc users..then would be no need to post about it in the first place.

The rest of your rant I have already answered.

I think not..you still never answered why you accused Simon of doing something that you yourself did. I understand you answered why you did it....but you never said why the accusation?

Like I said I am not trying to fight with you but if you want to attack me as a person then feel free because I am not going to stoop that far.

again PEACE ( although it is wearing thin),

Spice of the peaceful class

About privacy on the forum

Share this