V-Twin Show full post »
CHF10

V-Twin wrote:
Or shall we cut ties with Facebook by banning links to facebook on our forum altogether?  What do you think?

Knee-jerk reaction. Over-reaction. Both? I think so. Links are just links. If people choose to use Facebook, that's up to them. Don't try and moderate their use of Facebook by banning it here. FACT: Facebook is the number one source of collaborative social groups (like we are here) in the world. Forums I have been a member of have shrivelled up and died because of the shift to Facebook. There are two Australian Indian Rider groups on Facebook that both independently have more members than this forum. Other than this forum, everything else for me (car enthusiast, reef aquarium, herpetology, lawns (I did type grass originally but didn't want to give the wrong idea lol), have all moved from forum format to Facebook Groups. And the Marketplace is absolutely HUGE! It's easier to buy and sell on Facebook now than Gumtree. All they need to do to see the end of Gumtree is remove the 100km distance limit. Forums are hanging on for dear thanks to the app Tapatalk (which this forum isn't compatible with) and then there are the specific ones, like this one, with an older and somewhat anti-social media demographic that are also very active with a larger number of people who are either anti-social media or just anti-Facebook.

I am not trying to say this forum is bad. I think it's great. But there is no reason multiple sources can't be relevant. In fact it's pretty easy to prove that complimentary sources benefit everyone. Whatever information there is from the dealers on rides - Facebook. IMRG activity (when there is some) - Facebook. Information from the US Indian groups - Facebook. All shared to this group.

There is no harm whatsoever in sharing a link to something on Facebook from this forum. It is up to the person who clicks on it if they want to use Facebook or not. Please don't try the socialist approach by enforcing arbitrary moderation on people. Please leave it to personal choice.

If you're worried about liability, add something to the terms and conditions of use that the forum and it's owners are not liable for the use of shared external links or something. It's far better than even MORE censorship.

Live free or die!
Quote 1 0
V-Twin
Thank you Sean and CHF10.  Your compelling arguments have convinced me not to put the motion to ‘disassociate from facebook’ before the ‘Council of Elders’.
Let's be kind to one another.
Melbourne, Victoria
Quote 0 0
OzOldie
I don't advocate banning all FartBook links - many go to the base home page for a company and it doesn't require login to view their phone number or website link.

Links that require FB login to view don't bother me, I just don't go there, they lose out.

And I just won't deal with a company that only used FartBook, especially those that advertise "join us on FB to get 10% off" - NOPE, even 50% off is not worth the sh!t that is FB.

Basically I'm saying - let the individual person decide about a link.

Just so long as it's not hidden that it's FB.

Like I said, I'll pop over to a FartBook link to see a phone number or other website link.
If FB is all they have and there's no phone number... NOPE. And if they require FB login before viewing then NOPE too.
Quote 1 0
Dr.Shifty
Everyone knows FB is invasive and sweeps up everything it can about everyone. But it's not the only thing to do this, try the Woolworths reward card and see how it compares. Trying to keep private in today's world is becoming harder. The particular skill that FB has developed is to mine people's information in such a way that it can sell it to the Woolworths of the world.

And if FB causes you problems, try staying clear of anything that Google owns. Everything you do there gets agglomerated and sorted and used for whatever new purpose they can come up with.

I've seen special interest groups go from communicating on the early bulletin boards, then to forums like this, and then to FB. I don't like the move as the format of FB does not work for me because of dyslexia, but there are groups I'm a part of that have left the forum world and have no other communication than FB. I rarely post to any of them but if I'm to keep up with what's happening I have to check in regularly - and I still miss stuff.

I can only vaguely remember seeing FB links on this forum anyway and as much as FB frustrates me, I can't see the point of stopping it in the future.

V-Twin wrote:
In protest of these deceptive practices, I will be deleting my facebook account.
FB also owns Instagram and Twitter, both of which you use for your motorbike diary. Are you going to delete those accounts?
Cheers, Kim.

From Woodrising (no, nobody else has heard of it either)
Rides a Springfield Dark Horse
Quote 1 0
crash
I hear you Sean.  And you are correct, everyone wants some "personal info". 
For example my phone provider (presumably optus) wanted 100 points of proof that I was who I was (when I asked him for his proof of identity he gave me a business card).  Now that in its simplest form is not such a problem however they wanted me to scan and send my drivers license and my passport to obtain a contract to spend money on their phone system.  Needless to say I refused. 

I guess the point is that we are all giving lots of information away to all sorts of people - this information collectively can have a reasonably comprehensive fingerprint of your behavior.  Now if you were to couple that with social media it takes it to the next level.

For example (and hypothetically).
Having my name out there is public domain and this is not a bad thing.
If you couple this with my email address - this provides a marketing firm with information that now may be useful.
If you add to this my mobile phone number - this collective information is now worth paying for (for the right people)

Bearing in mind that so far we have information that is all relatively public domain and easy to obtain.

If you were to add to this a "domain registration" that has an address of sorts (whether that be a business address or a residential address is of no consequence)
Then you include your car / bike registration address.
Add in your insurance address
Now the fingerprint is pretty significant (albeit not so easily available but achievable).

Now add to that your social media profile that outlines all your friends, family and acquaintances.

This details your likes and dislikes.  It identifies the happy times in your life and the sad times in your life. 
The happy times may be buying a new motorcycle - in isolation this is not such a big deal (other than people now understand that you may be spending extended periods away from home)
The happy times may be that you have bought a new home - with some photos etc.
Put an alarm system in the house (bought the 2430 which is an absolutely ripper unit)
The sad times may be that a parent passes away (or something like that) in which case to the unscrupulous indicates that there may be an inheritance that would come with that (which also means that you may buy some other nice bits to make your life comfortable).This is easy pickings for the right type of person.

Now, lets say I am going on a ride for 4 days (taking the trouble and strife away as well), kids are doing their own thing and going away also.

To the right person, this information is gold and none of it was particularly hard to come by.  A little bit of information here and a little bit more there does not seem like much but for those that are targetting a specific demographic with a particular purpose in mind it can have a disastrous impact on your personal life (and the safety of your family potentially).

end of example

Whilst I post my activities on this forum, when I go away for an extended period I always have a house sitter for example - now someone reading this would say - hmmm, either there is something in this place that is valuable or the guy is just paranoid - believe me when I say I own an indian and my problem is the latter of the two 😃

Before you say that my address details are never put out there on a digital form of any description, how about Medibank, Medicare, your dentist, your doctor, your indian motorcycle retailer, your phone retailer, that raffle that has a house as first prize, your lease, your house, your bank, your apple account, your car finance, your car retailer, your electrician, your plumber, your vet, your council, Australia post, Toll, Allied express, your credit card, your share trader, news paper delivery guy and the list goes on and on.
How many of these would you think have your details in a digital form? - all of them because this is the way that they do business. 
Now how many of these organisations have internet? - all of them because they all get email. 
How many of these guys get hacked? - only the ones that tell you - before you say that legislation demands that they notify us, only firms that have a turnover over a certain dollar value have to report a security breach.  Then you have the businesses that don't figure that they have to report a breach until they get caught.  And then you have the businesses that don't think that the information that they are providing is important enough to warrant a breach.  Then there are others that just don't know.

Your social movements are probably more important than all of the other data collected and if you put it all together there is a potential that this could end badly.  It is only going to be a matter of time before insurance companies hook onto this and then refuse cover if you divulge this information on social media (because it is a risk to them and they see it like leaving the front door unlocked).

And finally, if you couple this with Google tracking your every movement via your mobile phone digitally and pinpointing where you are at any given moment during the day (oh, yes, this is happening right now and has been for a while) - you have a recipe for unwarranted attention - not to say that you will get it but why put it out there in the first place.


Ulysses #30673
IMRG #AU100394
Current: RoadMaster (ebony and ivory)
Highett Victoria Australia
Quote 0 0
V-Twin
Dr.Shifty wrote:
FB also owns Instagram and Twitter, both of which you use for your motorbike diary. Are you going to delete those accounts?
Done! All my accounts owned or managed by facebook have been deleted.

It is true that Google and many other companies collect data to advance their own agendas. The distinction is, facebook was handing out 'lollies' to attract 13-years old kids, made them install spyware, and actively monitored their behaviours. To me, there is a difference between facebook and other companies.

If I remained silent and did nothing, I am endorsing their behaviours by my behaviour.  At the very least, looking the other way, as our benefits outweigh their immoral behaviours. I may be nobody, and I may be one, but I choose to try.
Let's be kind to one another.
Melbourne, Victoria
Quote 0 0
crash
Dr.Shifty wrote:
FB also owns Instagram and Twitter
I choose to also not use these accounts because of their pervasive nature into my personal life. In fact the only "social" media that I am actively involved in is this forum.
Do I have a facebook account - sure.
Do I have a twitter account - sure.
Do I have a gmail address - sure.

Am I active in any of them - no.
Ulysses #30673
IMRG #AU100394
Current: RoadMaster (ebony and ivory)
Highett Victoria Australia
Quote 0 0
CHF10
V-Twin wrote:
Done! All my accounts owned or managed by facebook have been deleted.

It is true that Google and many other companies collect data to advance their own agendas. The distinction is, facebook was handing out 'lollies' to attract 13-years old kids, made them install spyware, and actively monitored their behaviours. To me, there is a difference between facebook and other companies.

If I remained silent and did nothing, I am endorsing their behaviours by my behaviour.  At the very least, looking the other way, as our benefits outweigh their immoral behaviours. I may be nobody, and I may be one, but I choose to try.
Sorry but I take exception to that. By keeping my accounts I'm not endorsing their behaviours. Just like by not reporting people using mobile phones while driving to the Police is not endorsing mobile phone use while driving, which to me is a far more significant issue today than social media is... (hmmmmm, does one perpetuate the other? There's another topic!) 

Fact is I'm not going to get all my friends and family (a great number of which are international) to switch to an alternate platform. Nor am I going to be able to stay involved with my other interests without maintaining my FB account. Not until there is a dramatic shift in platform use. 

I don't like, endorse or encourage some practices by many big organisations like FB. But some use of or involvement with them is almost 100% necessary.

Another example is the behaviour and practices of financial institutions. I have to keep using those! I can't shut down all my accounts in protest or because it's perceived I'm endorsing their practices by using them. 

No disrespect to your decision or actions. Each to their own. But I personally wouldn't hold anything against you for maintaining a social media presence in light of the social media organisations actions or practices.
Live free or die!
Quote 0 0
crash
CHF10 wrote:
Sorry but I take exception to that. By keeping my accounts I'm not endorsing their behaviours. Just like by not reporting people using mobile phones while driving to the Police is not endorsing mobile phone use while driving, which to me is a far more significant issue today than social media is... (hmmmmm, does one perpetuate the other? There's another topic!) 

Fact is I'm not going to get all my friends and family (a great number of which are international) to switch to an alternate platform. Nor am I going to be able to stay involved with my other interests without maintaining my FB account. Not until there is a dramatic shift in platform use. 

I don't like, endorse or encourage some practices by many big organisations like FB. But some use of or involvement with them is almost 100% necessary.

Another example is the behaviour and practices of financial institutions. I have to keep using those! I can't shut down all my accounts in protest or because it's perceived I'm endorsing their practices by using them. 

No disrespect to your decision or actions. Each to their own. But I personally wouldn't hold anything against you for maintaining a social media presence in light of the social media organisations actions or practices. 
Agree, I think the message here (for me anyways) is not necessarily to stop using the product (otherwise we would have all stopped using apple products some time ago because of their manufacturing processes in China and their use of "near" slave labor in producing their products) but more to be careful and knowledgeable about the information that you disseminate and how to represent that information for use in the future.

There are lots of good examples of corporates not doing the right thing.

Banks for one - they put up interest rates when the reserve bank keeps them low with little or no concern about whether they are going to cause hardship.  
Church groups - (not all but they are being tarred with the same brush) should we all stop going to church because of the recent press that has dominated the airwaves.

Gun manufacturers - because some people abuse them and cause injury and hurt to others.

We could find millions of reasons for all sorts of organisations where business practices are less than stellar (Asbestos, Cigarettes, Pharmaceutical companies, volkswagon, even Red Cross for example).

If we were to boycott every business that did not behave responsibly I figure we would be in real trouble (not to mention the dark age).
The problem with FaceBook and Social Media as far as I can see is that they are exploiting individuals for personal gain (but they are not the only ones).  The trick is to determine what information you want to provide to social media platforms - bearing in mind that you have absolutely no control over how that information is going to be used in the future.

I know that this is going to sound wrong but I am going to put it out there anyway - those teenagers who were "enticed" to put spyware on their machines - at some point we also have to ask, what is the parents role in all of this - should they be keeping a closer watch on their 13 year old instead of relying on legislation, boycotts and other type of activities to keep their children safe.  Whilst I am not condoning the action (and any activity that causes harm to children of any age must be stopped), I can see where this is a complex social problem that we (as parents) have generated by using social media as (to some degree) a baby sitter.

Lets say we "close down facebook" - another will pop up around the corner and it will be slicker, easier, more fun and more entertaining than what we had.  In fact Facebook does not have to close down, there are all kinds of threats lurking out there in the big wide web.  We buy tools now to protect us from them (anti virus etc) and there are entire industries built around these security requirements.

I think that we should just be mindful of our digital fingerprint and how that information can be used (both by corporates and by the not so corporate). 
We need to keep a closer eye on anyone that is under our guardianship to ensure that they understand the ramifications of putting this information out into the big wide world and help them to understand that this information is never, ever removed from the public forum once it has been put out there.
We need to educate instead of legislate.


Ulysses #30673
IMRG #AU100394
Current: RoadMaster (ebony and ivory)
Highett Victoria Australia
Quote 3 0
Sean Judd

Crash it's the same problem we've always had, it's just simply evolved. I had my identity stolen when I was in my mid 20's. Someone on the other side of Melbourne ran up thousands in debts under my name. I remember the Detectives explaining to me how easy it was to steal someone's identity, it was certainly much easier to cause the damage than it was for me to undo the damage. They were able to narrow it down to a suburb but that's as close as they came to catching the person. 

I've had someone from O/S run up a massive debt to information services on my phone. That one was a break down in Optus security, again a right pain in the arse to prove it wasn't me. 

Someone from Sydney stole massive chunks of my internet data, fortunately that was an easy one for my ISP to see that it wasn't me. 

The first two happened well before the Internet started to grow.  None of them were ever caught. Sadly we live in a world where if someone really wants to exploit you, they will. Sadly facebook isn't even the worst of them. The best we can hope to do is make it difficult enough that they lose interest and move on to an easier target. But as history has shown, switching everything off and shutting yourself off from the world is still not enough to stop them. 

Current 2018 Chieftain

Past 2016 Scout

Future I'm thinking old School 40s Chief. 

Quote 2 0
OzOldie
crash wrote:

For example my phone provider (presumably optus) wanted 100 points of proof that I was who I was (when I asked him for his proof of identity he gave me a business card).  Now that in its simplest form is not such a problem however they wanted me to scan and send my drivers license and my passport to obtain a contract to spend money on their phone system.  Needless to say I refused.



One of the worrying things is that they want JUST the right information that identity theft also requires... and we are trained, brainwashed, into just handing it over to these companies.

Contrast to that:

I got a call from my bank, HSBC, over a possible fraudulent activity on my debit card - it was me buying Kaspersky A/V.
When the guy called he wanted ME to provide ID, answer the security questions, and so on.

I told him, "no, you called me, YOU prove who you are"  - "we don't do it that way, you have to prove that this is your account"
"you mean... the account that YOU called ME over?  Nope - you could be anyone, you prove who you are".

In the end I said that if he refuses to prove who he is then I'm taking it as him being a scammer... and hung up on him.

Then I called the bank and it turned out he WAS from HSBC fraud dept. 
But I said to them that if you call in then you prove who you are, not the person called.

I don't even respond to people on the phone who ask "who am I talking to".... "You called me!, You should know who you expect to have answer!"

People might think this is paranoia or over-the-top.  But I have never in 40+years of computer use had a virus, never had ID theft, never been conned by a phone or email scam.
Meanwhile there are tens and hundreds of thousands each year who DO.

A little paranoia would stop that.
Quote 0 0
Sean Judd
 Have passwords on all my bank accounts and some utilities for operators to use. The word is in my contact details on their files. If they don’t use the word they can’t speak to me.

When I first set that up there was lots of confusion at their end, ‘no we don’t do that’ ‘no that’s the word for you to use’ but they all quickly seemed to work out that if they don’t use the password then they can’t speak to me. It works great now.

Current 2018 Chieftain

Past 2016 Scout

Future I'm thinking old School 40s Chief. 

Quote 0 0
OzOldie
Now that's a good idea... problem is that the banks are so arrogant they'd just refuse to do it.
I can see it working if they want to talk to you over something... but they love their power, especially banks.

It's like needing the Oz "100 points of ID"... but to get a mobile phone account.. "What you want me to prove who I am just to give you money for your bullshit service??"
That 100 points thing is crap anyway - Brit birth cert worth 10 on some and 20 on others?  Brit passport? NOPE, no phone company is getting that!  I'll do without phone. My bank account details? - sod off!.

So the banks will lock your card or your account over some "fraud detection" then when they call you they refuse to use your code word and still keep it locked... I had to call them and prove "me = me" to get the card unlocked (in my story above).

I'd still do it again if their "fraud dept" called me.

I might try that code word idea. You never know, they might accept it.

Trust no one.
Quote 0 0
CHF10

OzOldie that's such a pet hate of mine. Someone calls me and the FIRST thing they say is "Hi is that Kris?" ... I just hang up. They soon get the idea. Identity theft and confirming who people are aside, it's common courtesy to start with "Hi this is X from X and I'd like to speak with Kris please".

I don't even have voice mail any more. Identity theft often starts with getting a number (or dialing at random) and then a voice recording of the person. I also never answer the phone with my name, just "Hello". Once a fraudster knows the name, has the mobile number, they call back as the bank and ask them to verify who they are with address and password. Viola, Now they have all the bank details they need to call the bank and get the netbank password reset.

I laugh when I call insurance companies for quotes and they ask for my name, address, telephone number... None of that is needed. They need my age, sex and postcode for the quote, but that's it. The don't get my business if they insist they NEED more.

Some simple steps can save a LOT of pain. But as OzOldie said, society is brainwashed into the current mindset people have. And fraudsters are LOVING it!

Live free or die!
Quote 0 0
OzOldie
Have a look here
https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/about-scamwatch/scam-statistics

 
Amount lost - $4,991,491

Number of reports - 20,036

(OK, accepted, that's across all types of scams. But that's 2019 ONLY, FFS!!)

Some of those numbers and the scams involved are scary - not for the scam but scary that people will be that open and trusting of their personal data.

Partly I also blame the Govt. - they came out with this lie of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" for their own encroachment into our privacy.
We ALL have something to hide - bank account details, access codes, etc...
Quote 0 0
CHF10

OzOldie wrote:
But that's 2019 ONLY, FFS!!

And only January too!

Oh, careful using that abbreviation too. You'll quickly get your post edited and a slap on the wrist around here.

Live free or die!
Quote 0 0
crash
Everyone has their way of tackling things.  Some like to boycott, some choose to ignore and whatever your flavor is then great - good for you.

What I prefer is to, hopefully, explain to people what the actions that they are carrying out may mean for them.  Being mindful of what you put up on social media (regardless of the platform) and how this may impact not only yourselves but others around you.

Personally I would prefer not to have to explain to anyone where I was at any given moment, I would prefer not to have to explain that I didn't make a specific purchase but they are all superficial.  What I am really careful about is my (and my families) personal security.  As I said, this is my thing - and some are not so concerned - and that is fine.

Everybody, at some point in time, is going to become the victim (and that my friends, is a very sad and real fact) - some more than others.  You are not going to stop it but you, as an individual, can make it more difficult (and that can't be such a bad thing).  Yes, scams have been around for a long time (since snail mail was invented) but with the proliferation of computer devices, the internet and the pervasive nature of social media this problem is increasing at an exponential rate.  We should not be asking corporations to look after our personal information (because they can't) and I for one would certainly not be trusting a corporation with my personal information.  Lord knows it's bad enough that the government have all this information (that they are desperate to put in the one place - won't that be a cracker when it gets hacked) let alone corporations that have no vested interest in keeping your information safe.

My message is "be on your guard", be careful who has your information and what they are likely to do with it - it may save you a whole lot of hurt.
Ulysses #30673
IMRG #AU100394
Current: RoadMaster (ebony and ivory)
Highett Victoria Australia
Quote 1 0
OzOldie
CHF10 wrote:
And only January too!

Oh, careful using that abbreviation too. You'll quickly get your post edited and a slap on the wrist around here.

What?  "Friendly Face Slap" is banned?

Quote 1 0
Sean Judd

OzOldie wrote:


What?  "Friendly Face Slap" is banned?

I've just posted a ride using our name, just watch and see how fast it gets changed. That's one thing I do agree with CHF10 on, the moderating here sometimes doesn't appear to be very well thought out.

Current 2018 Chieftain

Past 2016 Scout

Future I'm thinking old School 40s Chief. 

Quote 1 0
OzOldie
I've never understood "double censorship".

Example... I say "F**K this" - the word is already censored with the **, why would that be a "naughty boy" moment?

And the reply I've had from some forums?  "because we know what's under the stars".

Now, think about that and how dumb it is - that means that a blurred out blob on titties is still wrong "because you know they're boobs under the blur".  After all, if we see a pixelated patch over a naked penis... we know what's there, right!?

Same as "FFS" - my using the acronym the term is pre-censored, that people know what it means doesn't change that.
The world is going simple, pussy-whipped, ultra-tame, "let's not offend anyone, even hint and maybe the thought of thinking of offending".
Quote 0 0
Dr.Shifty
For those interested in the history of Facebook being forced to admit their privacy breaches and data mining, this article is very informative.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/security-world/2019/02/max-schrems-lawyer-regulator-international-man-of-privacy/
Cheers, Kim.

From Woodrising (no, nobody else has heard of it either)
Rides a Springfield Dark Horse
Quote 0 0