funsec mailing list archives
Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...]
From: Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 01:10:35 +0300
I quite understand why you'd prefer to claim that [1] I do not understand the definition of spam (which none of us argued, and we based our discussion on) or that [2] I am not experienced enough to understand it. I understand because from my perspective, you are as much of a troglodyte who refuses to see what's right in front of him as you hint at me being. :) This is why we have these discussions -- to discuss evolving technology and how we should treat it. I'd prefer we do that now. If our beliefs hold true, all for the better. Then what's left is to see how our policies should reflect this. Now, while I find your message most informative as an excellent essay on spam, its definition, and its history, I also find it irrelevant, as: 1. We didn't debate what spam is, only if what Facebook does is in fact spam under the reasonable definition you kindly provided. 2. Saying your opponents are inexperienced may be true, as it may be false, but it is also coping out of the discussion where your knowledge can be an asset. I made solid arguments on why Facebook messages do not meet the definition of spam (which I have no argument with). You can counter them or present your own, but don't try and confuse me with big words, because I am obviously inexperienced (tongue in cheek). Also, you may disagree, but this is one of them rare cases where top-posting does a better job at replying to emails. However, in your final comments you did add relevant material:
[1] And I'm hardly the only one. We've discussed this among some of the more experienced people working in the anti-spam field and it seems that many of us have a generous cross-section of spam from an assortment of so-called "social networks". I often refer to them as the "privacy destruction industry" because as far as I can tell, their business models are based on a combination of con jobs, deception, data harvesting and brokering, privacy invasion, and abuse. Certainly anyone who has been paying attention during even just the last month knows that this montage describes Facebook beautifully.
I agree, Facebook is a privacy eating machine. Relevance?
[2] There are a few other things worth noting here: of course, Johnny Socialite is perfectly capable if sending out his own mail messages from his own account using his own mail server and saying "I just joined <blah> and you should too". There is thus no reason whatsoever for such a
Yes, but as Johnny Socialite I wish for a feature that lets me connect my different applications and functionality directly, be it social networking or email. Thus, I allow Facebook to let me do it from their site directly, with my clear permission and then approval of the text in the message.
mechanism to exist -- *except* to send spam, and to harvest address books so that the data can be accumulated and sold to anyone with cash-in-hand -- including other spammers, some of whom find social graph information quite useful.
Possible, even likely. But presented as clear truth without proof, it fails as an empty assertion. Also, such a mechanism does have a reason to exist -- As a user, I make use of it and find its functionality useful (generic "I", I don't actually like this feature). Gadi. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers, (continued)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Nick FitzGerald (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Valdis . Kletnieks (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Jim Murray (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Gadi Evron (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Remo Cornali (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Gadi Evron (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Remo Cornali (May 25)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Paul Vixie (May 27)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers Gadi Evron (May 27)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Rich Kulawiec (May 23)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Gadi Evron (May 23)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] der Mouse (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Gadi Evron (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] der Mouse (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] Gadi Evron (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...] der Mouse (May 24)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Gadi Evron (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot der Mouse (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot Gadi Evron (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot rackow (Jun 03)
- Re: But Facebook are not spammers - here's a screenshot David M Chess (Jun 03)