Leaving cam.misc

[Ben Hutchings]

Much as I've enjoyed cam.misc over the years, it's gone rather quiet.
I also left Cambridge in June and don't have any plans to return.
Individual.net is asking for a renewal fee but I don't think it makes
sense for me to continue subscribing.

I am the current host of the cam.misc wiki (although Paul Oldham owns
the domain) and I can keep it going, (It doesn't get many edits, even
spam, since I have to approve each user registrations.) But it might
make more sense for an active participant to take over. Let me know
if you're interested.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption] would be
development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. - Bill Gates

[Tim Ward]

On 22/03/2018 23:22, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> Much as I've enjoyed cam.misc over the years, it's gone rather quiet.

I have heard it said that "usenet died when Colin Rosenstiel and Tim
Ward stopped dissing Twitter and started using it".

(Most people switched to news.individual.net because Virgin Media
throttled usenet to the point of unusability. The throttling has now
gone, and I moved back when NIN stopped accepting payment by any means
other than Paypal. But you might have moved somewhere that doesn't have
a Virgin cable modem service.)

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <9bXsC.65482$Oy5....@fx11.am4>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward)
wrote:

In fact Virgin was of limited use to me because it meant I could only access
Usenet when on my Virgin connection at home which was often not the case on
my laptop. I thought Virgin had given up Usenet as they gave up web space.
CIX still has a Usenet gateway which works, though not entirely via NNTP.

I'm still in a number of Usenet groups, at least for the time being.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[roland...@gmail.com]

Of course, for low volume use there's always the Google Groups interface.

--
Roland@google

[The Natural Philosopher]

Or albasani.net or eternal-september.org

--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Tim Ward wrote:

> On 22/03/2018 23:22, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> Much as I've enjoyed cam.misc over the years, it's gone rather quiet.
>
> I have heard it said that "usenet died when Colin Rosenstiel and Tim
> Ward stopped dissing Twitter and started using it".

<grin>

I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?

[Tim Ward]

On 23/03/2018 23:15, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
> I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?

I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't have any
information in it, and it's locked down as tight as I can, and I've only
ever used it to converse with my children when they've been on different
continents.

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <T8gtC.239976$a15.1...@fx22.am4>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim

Ward) wrote:

> On 23/03/2018 23:15, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
> >
> > I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
>
> I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't have
> any information in it, and it's locked down as tight as I can, and
> I've only ever used it to converse with my children when they've been
> on different continents.

More than me then. While I'm fairly active on Twitter for the time being,
I've never had a Facebook account. Joye has one for the family pictures
stuff.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <T8gtC.239976$a15.1...@fx22.am4>, at 23:32:55 on Fri, 23
Mar 2018, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 23/03/2018 23:15, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
>
>I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't have
>any information in it, and it's locked down as tight as I can,

What this recent kerfuffle has highlighted is that the basic information
in your profile (things like where you work, where you studied, town
where you live, phone number and email address) are of little relevance
to the process of data mining.

What matters is your lists of favourites, your one-off "likes", and
"check-ins". And of course filling in clickbait surveys.

It's quite easy to avoid revealing things in that second paragraph.

>and I've only ever used it to converse with my children when they've
>been on different continents.

--

Roland Perry

[Espen Koht]

On 23/03/2018 23:32, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 23/03/2018 23:15, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>
>> I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
>
> I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't have any
> information in it,

Facebook has an account on you; what makes you so sure it doesn't have
any information on it?

[Espen Koht]

On 24/03/2018 8:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <T8gtC.239976$a15.1...@fx22.am4>, at 23:32:55 on Fri, 23
> Mar 2018, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 23/03/2018 23:15, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>>>  I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
>>
>> I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't have
>> any information in it, and it's locked down as tight as I can,
>
> What this recent kerfuffle has highlighted is that the basic information
> in your profile (things like where you work, where you studied, town
> where you live, phone number and email address) are of little relevance
> to the process of data mining.
>
> What matters is your lists of favourites, your one-off "likes", and
> "check-ins". And of course filling in clickbait surveys.
>
> It's quite easy to avoid revealing things in that second paragraph.

That's because you still seem to be under the impression that the end
user needs to click on something to be tracked.

[Roland Perry]

In message <NOi*a1...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:22:11 on Sat,
24 Mar 2018, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>>> I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
>> I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't have
>>any information in it,
>
>Facebook has an account on you; what makes you so sure it doesn't have
>any information on it?

Maybe Tim has no friends ;)
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family. The account was set
up to talk to travelling children.

[Roland Perry]

In message <8Lq*Q3...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:33:29 on Sat,

24 Mar 2018, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

Inside Facebook, if you don't click on anything, very little happens.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <67rtC.70289$3o5....@fx20.am4>, at 12:01:58 on Sat, 24 Mar
2018, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 24/03/2018 11:35, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <NOi*a1...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:22:11 on
>>Sat, 24 Mar 2018, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
>>>>  I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't
>>>>have any  information in it,
>>>
>>> Facebook has an account on you; what makes you so sure it doesn't
>>>have any information on it?
>> Maybe Tim has no friends ;)
>
>None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family.

But that means you probably have "friends of friends" (which is one of
the biggest privacy gotchas). Anyway, immediate family is still "data".
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 24/03/2018 12:52, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> That's because you still seem to be under the impression that the end
>> user needs to click on something to be tracked.
>
> Inside Facebook, if you don't click on anything, very little happens.

Espen may be referring to cookies and bugs and suchlike that you get
infected by when just visiting Facebook and then track you round other
sites, and is suggesting that Facebook are collecting data by these means?

[Tim Ward]

On 24/03/2018 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>  Maybe Tim has no friends ;)
>>
>> None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family.
>
> But that means you probably have "friends of friends" (which is one of
> the biggest privacy gotchas). Anyway, immediate family is still "data".

This is all true, but it's no secret who my immediate family are and
anyone could pick up their Facebook information even if I didn't have
that account, so I don't see the presence of that account making an
awful lot of difference.

[Espen Koht]

You both still seem to be in the mode of thinking this is about 'people
I've actively linked myself to'. Forget that. This is about all those
people (possibly someone completely irrelevant) has uploaded or given
access to their address book which has your contact details in it ('for
their convenience' of course). Now link that to any businesses who buy
advertising and may reasonably have your contact details and there you
go: that's your network.

[Espen Koht]

That's what web bugs are about; chances are you don't have to click the
like button to leave a trail if it was loaded from Facebook (or linked
to their APIs).

[Roland Perry]

In message <zXd*4A...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:03:46 on Sat,

24 Mar 2018, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

Do any anti-spyware suites deal with these bugs?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <UqstC.40216$dj4....@fx07.am4>, at 13:31:19 on Sat, 24 Mar

2018, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>  Maybe Tim has no friends ;)
>>>
>>> None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family.
>> But that means you probably have "friends of friends" (which is one
>>of the biggest privacy gotchas). Anyway, immediate family is still
>>"data".
>
>This is all true, but it's no secret who my immediate family are and
>anyone could pick up their Facebook information even if I didn't have
>that account, so I don't see the presence of that account making an
>awful lot of difference.

It allows Facebook to make some tenuous assumptions (ie have data to
start profiling you) based on the Friends-of-Friends' data.
--
Roland Perry

[The Natural Philosopher]

Use skype and whatsapp for that here.


--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

[Tim Ward]

On 24/03/2018 17:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family. The account was set
>> up to talk to travelling children.
>>
> Use skype and whatsapp for that here.

My universal experience of Skype is that it works fine once you've
arranged the call via some other channel. In which case ... why not just
use the other channel for your communication, if you don't actually need
a video call?

Don't know what "whatsapp" is.

[Roland Perry]

In message <iqwtC.79613$WW2....@fx08.am4>, at 18:03:45 on Sat, 24 Mar
2018, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>>> None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family. The account was
>>>set up to talk to travelling children.
>>>
>> Use skype and whatsapp for that here.
>
>My universal experience of Skype is that it works fine once you've
>arranged the call via some other channel. In which case ... why not
>just use the other channel for your communication, if you don't
>actually need a video call?
>
>Don't know what "whatsapp" is.

A lot like Skype, for mobiles mainly, with much better management of
small CUGs.
--
Roland Perry

[Espen Koht]

It usually falls to plugins like Ghostery which I notice has recently
been made Open Source (in case you are in the 'who tracks the trackers'
question group): https://github.com/ghostery/ghostery-extension

and the parent company has a number of decent look articles on both the
politics and technical dimensions of current types of tracking:

https://cliqz.com/en/magazine

[The Natural Philosopher]

Good grief. Arranged the call by some other channel?

Just send messages. If the other persn is there switch to audio and or
video.

Whatsapp is skype more or less. IP videophone

Runs on smart phones

has a web interface too.




--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

[Tim Ward]

On 24/03/2018 18:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> My universal experience of Skype is that it works fine once you've
>> arranged the call via some other channel. In which case ... why not
>> just use the other channel for your communication, if you don't
>> actually need a video call?
>>

> Good grief. Arranged the call by some other channel?
>
> Just send messages. If the other persn is there switch to audio and or
> video.

I don't know anyone who has Skype running other than for a pre-arranged
call.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It runs in background on my desktop, laptop and smartphone


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

[Theo]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> Don't know what "whatsapp" is.

Whatsapp is Facebook, with a thin veneer of privacy policy separating the
two.

Theo

[Tim Ward]

On 24/03/2018 20:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/03/18 19:18, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 24/03/2018 18:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My universal experience of Skype is that it works fine once you've
>>>> arranged the call via some other channel. In which case ... why not
>>>> just use the other channel for your communication, if you don't
>>>> actually need a video call?
>>>>
>>> Good grief. Arranged the call by some other channel?
>>>
>>> Just send messages. If the other persn is there switch to audio and
>>> or video.
>>
>> I don't know anyone who has Skype running other than for a
>> pre-arranged call.
>>
> It runs in background on my desktop, laptop and smartphone

I eventually found out how to stop that (although it tends to need
repeating after each upgrade) - I don't need something running
permanently that I only use every few months. OK, so I probably do have
enough memory these days not to bother worrying about the amount that's
eaten up by permanently loaded unused applications[#], but remember that
I grew up in the days of carefully tuning autoexec.bat and config.sys to
get rid of unneeded TSRs and drivers, and some old habits die hard.

[#] FX: goes and checks. 32G here, about 4G in use.

[Roland Perry]

In message <p96bb3$gfe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:11 on Sat, 24 Mar
2018, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>>>> My universal experience of Skype is that it works fine once you've
>>>>arranged the call via some other channel. In which case ... why not
>>>>just use the other channel for your communication, if you don't
>>>>actually need a video call?
>>>>
>>> Good grief. Arranged the call by some other channel?
>>>
>>> Just send messages. If the other persn is there switch to audio and
>>>or video.
>> I don't know anyone who has Skype running other than for a
>>pre-arranged call.
>>
>It runs in background on my desktop, laptop and smartphone

Yes; I had Skype running in the background on laptops for many many
years, until the bloat made it unsustainable.

Now have Whatsapp running 24x7 on my phone.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <-Cu*C0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 20:26:27 on Sat,
24 Mar 2018, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>> Don't know what "whatsapp" is.
>
>Whatsapp is Facebook, with a thin veneer of privacy policy separating the
>two.

It's now owned by Facebook, but the product's functionality is
completely differently presented. eg It's not a photo-sharing thing,
just comms.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 24/03/2018 20:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> It's now owned by Facebook, but the product's functionality is
> completely differently presented. eg It's not a photo-sharing thing,
> just comms.

Or there's Slack, which also does instant messaging / voice / video ...
or there's no doubt at least 247 alternative walled gardens. Oh for a
common standard and a universal system ...

... oh, but wait, there is: it's called email. Pity today's kids don't
check it more than once a month.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well no, it isn't.

> Theo

[The Natural Philosopher]

No they don't.

I have 8GB RAM these days, not 1M.

> [#] FX: goes and checks. 32G here, about 4G in use.
>


--

[chrish...@gmail.com]

In the terms and conditions on Facebook, it is stated that the your details are given to all related Facebook owned companies unless you object to them doing so.

It comes down to how paranoid you are.

[rcp...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 24 March 2018 18:38:39 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/03/18 12:01, Tim Ward wrote:
> > On 24/03/2018 11:35, Roland Perry wrote:
> >> In message <NOi*a1...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:22:11 on
> >> Sat, 24 Mar 2018, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
> >>
> >>>>> I'm a Twitter and Facebook refusenik and don't I look smug now?
> >>>>  I don't do Facebook. Well, I do have an account, but it doesn't
> >>>> have any  information in it,
> >>>
> >>> Facebook has an account on you; what makes you so sure it doesn't
> >>> have any information on it?
> >>
> >> Maybe Tim has no friends ;)
> >
> > None on Facebook, no, other than immediate family. The account was set
> > up to talk to travelling children.
> >
> Use skype and whatsapp for that here.

Whatsapp is owned by facebook. You can draw your own conclusion as to how permeable the barrier between facebook metadata and whatsapp metadata is.

Robin

[rcp...@gmail.com]

It lets you set up group chats, and it lets you post photos to it. That seems pretty much "photo-sharing" to me. It may be that you don't use that particular functionality, but it's there.

Robin

[Roland Perry]

In message <28f00703-6cd0-46cc...@googlegroups.com>, at
01:52:23 on Mon, 26 Mar 2018, rcp...@gmail.com remarked:

>> >> Don't know what "whatsapp" is.
>> >
>> >Whatsapp is Facebook, with a thin veneer of privacy policy separating the
>> >two.
>>
>> It's now owned by Facebook, but the product's functionality is
>> completely differently presented. eg It's not a photo-sharing thing,
>> just comms.
>
>It lets you set up group chats, and it lets you post photos to it. That
>seems pretty much "photo-sharing" to me. It may be that you don't use
>that particular functionality, but it's there.

OK, change that to "photo *album* sharing". Everything else is just
snapchat+.
--
Roland Perry

[rcp...@gmail.com]

Except that the USP of snapchat is that its posts are temporary and disappear after a period. What's App and Facebook Messenger are basically indistinguishable in functionality.

Robin

[Roland Perry]

In message <4448fd82-4a3d-4af4...@googlegroups.com>, at
04:07:16 on Mon, 26 Mar 2018, rcp...@gmail.com remarked:

>> >> >> Don't know what "whatsapp" is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Whatsapp is Facebook, with a thin veneer of privacy policy separating the
>> >> >two.
>> >>
>> >> It's now owned by Facebook, but the product's functionality is
>> >> completely differently presented. eg It's not a photo-sharing thing,
>> >> just comms.
>> >
>> >It lets you set up group chats, and it lets you post photos to it. That
>> >seems pretty much "photo-sharing" to me. It may be that you don't use
>> >that particular functionality, but it's there.
>>
>> OK, change that to "photo *album* sharing". Everything else is just
>> snapchat+.
>
>Except that the USP of snapchat is that its posts are temporary and
>disappear after a period.

Hence the "+" - not disappearing, although I understand you can now make
Whatsapp postings disappear.

>What's App and Facebook Messenger are
>basically indistinguishable in functionality.

Facebook is much more than Messenger, and Whatsapp is much more
sophisticated about people you chat with needing to be invited.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:38:22 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <4448fd82-4a3d-4af4...@googlegroups.com>, at
>04:07:16 on Mon, 26 Mar 2018, rcp...@gmail.com remarked:

>>What's App and Facebook Messenger are
>>basically indistinguishable in functionality.
>
>Facebook is much more than Messenger, and Whatsapp is much more
>sophisticated about people you chat with needing to be invited.

WhatsApp is a lot more flexible and powerful in terms of features than
Messenger, and you don't need a Facebook account to be able to use it.

The downside is that, unlike Messenger and Skype, it's phone only - it
doesn't have a native tablet or desktop app, and even the web version
relies on the phone app to authenticate.

It probably helps to see WhatsApp more as a souped-up replacement for
phone and SMS, whereas Messenger is a spin-off from existing social
media and Skype is a multi-platform video calling package. They all
have their pros and cons.

Mark

[Ben Hutchings]

On 2018-03-22, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/03/2018 23:22, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> Much as I've enjoyed cam.misc over the years, it's gone rather quiet.
>
> I have heard it said that "usenet died when Colin Rosenstiel and Tim
> Ward stopped dissing Twitter and started using it".
>
> (Most people switched to news.individual.net because Virgin Media
> throttled usenet to the point of unusability. The throttling has now
> gone, and I moved back when NIN stopped accepting payment by any means
> other than Paypal. But you might have moved somewhere that doesn't have
> a Virgin cable modem service.)

I stopped using NTL ages ago (before the Virgin rebrand). My current
ISP (Zen) once had a news server but not any more.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Albert Einstein

[Paul Gotch]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> It probably helps to see WhatsApp more as a souped-up replacement for
> phone and SMS, whereas Messenger is a spin-off from existing social
> media and Skype is a multi-platform video calling package. They all
> have their pros and cons.

WhatsApp actually using the Signal protocol from OpenWhisper underneath
but it doesn't interoperate with it.

For the circle of people I can pursuade to install it I just use Signal
directly.

-p
--
Paul Gotch
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gropius Riftwynde]

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 23:30:05 UTC, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Much as I've enjoyed cam.misc over the years, it's gone rather quiet.

> I also left Cambridge in June and don't have any plans to return.
> Individual.net is asking for a renewal fee but I don't think it makes
> sense for me to continue subscribing.
>
> I am the current host of the cam.misc wiki (although Paul Oldham owns
> the domain) and I can keep it going, (It doesn't get many edits, even
> spam, since I have to approve each user registrations.) But it might
> make more sense for an active participant to take over. Let me know
> if you're interested.
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption] would be
> development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. - Bill Gates

I sort of left Cam.Misc when I left Cambridge for Cornwall about 17 years ago. I also pop back to Cambridge itself now and then. But the main thing I miss is the entertaining, crazy but informed threads that there were on cam.misc. For now, I am making do on the FB group Extreme Pedantry.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 02:02:29 -0700 (PDT), Gropius Riftwynde
<rers...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I sort of left Cam.Misc when I left Cambridge for Cornwall about 17 years
>ago. I also pop back to Cambridge itself now and then. But the main thing
>I miss is the entertaining, crazy but informed threads that there were on
>cam.misc. For now, I am making do on the FB group Extreme Pedantry.

I ceased working in Cambridge, and moved out of the area, in 2002. But
I've stayed in cam.misc because it's the only .misc group on Usenet
that still carries a good range of discussions on miscellaneous
subjects, not necessarily Cambridge-related, without being swamped by
trolls and spammers. Although my family still live in the area, and I
do visit regularly, so even some of the "greater Cambridge" stuff is
still relevant to me.

I'm on EP too, although it sometimes seems a little unnecessarily
forced.

Mark