Text 31491, 69 rader
Skriven 2009-04-19 19:09:50 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 31458 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Imageshack
==================
19 Apr 09 11:06, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Bashe on Saturday April 18 2009 at 16:13:

 RB>>> What leaves your own personal computer is public domain, regardless
 RB>>> of what anyone promises. Call it paranoia - maybe you're right. But
 RB>>> better safe than sorry.

 RW>> And that isn't true either. My son's website now has images on it
 RW>> that can't be copied. Now. He learned that lesson quick enough.

 RB> "Can't be copied"? Lotsa luck.

Go to the website and try to right click and copy or download a picture.
It can't be done. There are other sites just like that where you can't
steal the pictures.

 RW>>>> In Facebook, he doesn't worry about it, since only family and
 RW>>>> friends can see it, unless he opens it to the public.

 RB>>> Or unless the site is hacked. Lotsa luck.

 RW>> Not many sites can be hacked these days. Most of them are using
 RW>> Linox based software and it isn't easy to hack that.

 RB> Roy, you'd be surprised at the reports I see. In fact, _most_ servers
 RB> run on Linux nowadays and have for quite a number of years. But
 RB> that's not the point. You don't have to hack Linux to get at a
 RB> website, all you have to have to hack is the website software, which
 RB> - unfortunately - appears easy enough. I've seen enough examples in
 RB> the past years.

I disagree, but I'll let the Linux folks argue the point.

 RB>>> I send (private) images I want others to see to them personally via
 RB>>> email. Anything else is (or as far as I'm concerned) in the public
 RB>>> domain and can land anywhere in the next 20 years.

 RW>> Believe it or not, your 'private' images sent via email are easier
 RW>> to pirate than my images on Facebook. Mine are uploaded to a secure
 RW>> site, while yours traverse the internet from server to server, who
 RW>> knows how many times they're bounced to a pirate site.

 RB> Believe what you want, but anything at a website is less secure than
 RB> as an email attachment for the simple reason that you are small and
 RB> unknown, whereas the site is large and internationally known.
 RB> Anonymity is your _only_ protection in the Internet.

Believe what you want, I know better.

 RB> Frankly, I'd like to encrypt all my emails (there is good public-key
 RB> encryption software availble for free), but most (read: 99+%) of the
 RB> people I write simply can't deal with even the simplest encryption
 RB> software. That's a standard problem in the computer community: YOU
 RB> may know how to do something, but nobody you deal with does - or even
 RB> is aware of the danger.

 RB> It's very frustrating.

I got tired of the color blue a long time ago, so I leave those people to
their own devices, whatever the consequences.

                R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)