Facebook - Your Opinions.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That is true of *any* data stored online. Do you propose that the world go back to papyrus?

My point covered life as it is in the 21st century and perhaps you have never been made aware of global criminality in this century who always seem to be one step ahead of the banking industry.

Why do you ever think that I would even consider the papyrus system as being criminal-proof. Have you ever given considered thought to the fact that "past eons criminals" were most certainly capable of forging any papyrus document?

 

[najaB]

Why do you ever think that I would even consider the papyrus system as being criminal-proof. Have you ever given considered thought to the fact that "past eons criminals" were most certainly capable of forging any papyrus document?

Which is kinda the point - it has ever been thus.

The odds of *your* data being hacked are so low that it doesn't make sense to lose out on the benefits that online banking provides based on the small (but non-zero) risk that you'll get your data stolen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The odds of *your* data being hacked are so low that it doesn't make sense to lose out on the benefits that online banking provides based on the small (but non-zero) risk that you'll get your data stolen.

But my personal method is better as there is zero chance of my information ever being obtained. I seem to be able to live an exceedingly comfortable life as does my good lady wife, both of us septuagenarians, using my personal system.

 

[najaB]

But my personal method is better as there is zero chance of my information ever being obtained.

No, the risk is virtually the same as the data is still stored in electronic form at the bank.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No, the risk is virtually the same as the data is still stored in electronic form at the bank.

I have never yet had criminals posing as employees of the banking organisation I use contacting me in the same way as other unfortunate individuals have been over the past years. Obviously I am not foolish enough to speak of specialised security systems that I employ on an open internet site such as this.

 

[AlterEgo]

I never have had the slightest inclination to subscribe to Facebook, Twitter and the like for the same reason why I will never have anything to do with any form of "internet banking", which is no guarantees can be made that the global criminal fraternity cannot access your personal information.

But this forum has targeted advertising and holds information about you. What’s different?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But this forum has targeted advertising and holds information about you. What’s different?

This forum holds no financial information whatsoever about me and has never asked for any. That is what is different. I think I will make contact with the forum staff in order to convey your worry about such a matter to them as a matter of urgency.

Can targeted advertising overcome ADBLOCK PLUS? I ask this as I never see any adverts on this website.

 

[Lucan]

But this forum has targeted advertising and holds information about you.

Seriously, could you enlarge on that please?

I have never seen an advert on this forum (and I don't use Adblock). And what information does it hold other than (AFAIR) my username*, password, a DoB (which might or might not be right), and my local station? I have never received a spam email or advert at any time on the internet that could be remotely connected with my use of this forum.

* I am not really Lord Lucan BTW, in case that's what you or the marketing people were thinking.

 

[AlterEgo]

Seriously, could you enlarge on that please?

I have never seen an advert on this forum (and I don't use Adblock). And what information does it hold other than (AFAIR) my username*, password, a DoB (which might or might not be right), and my local station? I have never received a spam email or advert at any time on the internet that could be remotely connected with my use of this forum.

* I am not really Lord Lucan BTW, in case that's what you or the marketing people were thinking.

This site has adverts. That’s how it’s funded. I’m surprised you haven’t seen them, unless you’re using an ad blocker. They are generally at the top of the page.

This site also holds data about its members, like their email addresses, as well as any other information they choose to give. Paul has in the past disclosed the town he lives in, his exact date of birth, the cars we can expect to see in his drive, the name of his wife, where he goes often, and so on. That’s his choice. My point is, it’s a little strange to complain about “internet banking” and Facebook data leaks when you’re giving away lots of information about yourself online.

 

[AlterEgo]

This forum holds no financial information whatsoever about me and has never asked for any. That is what is different. I think I will make contact with the forum staff in order to convey your worry about such a matter to them as a matter of urgency.

Facebook doesn’t hold any financial information about you either.

Can targeted advertising overcome ADBLOCK PLUS? I ask this as I never see any adverts on this website.

It probably can’t, but if you use an adblocker on this site you deprive it of revenue.

 

[Lucan]

This site has adverts. That’s how it’s funded. I’m surprised you haven’t seen them, unless you’re using an ad blocker.

I have a ad monitor (AdNauseam) which indicates zero ads on these pages, and I don't see any even after allowing ads to be unblocked. Look at top right of this screenshot :-

if you use an adblocker on this site you deprive it of revenue.

Only if the advertisers think so many people are blocking that they withdraw from advertising here. But they know there will be a percentage of adblocking wherever they go, except that the percentage will be lower on certain websites (Yahoo, Daily Mirror, perhaps) but I expect it is more expensive to advertise there anyway. Websites also often get get paid by the advertiser per click that users make on their ad. No worries there - AdNauseam sends automatic clicks to the advertiser even while hiding the ad itself.

 

[najaB]

I have a ad monitor (AdNauseam) which indicates zero ads on these pages, and I don't see any even after allowing ads to be unblocked. Look at top right of this screenshot

You (or your ISP) are blocking ads as they appear at the top and bottom of most (all?) pages for me with no ad-blocker installed.

 

[najaB]

I have never yet had criminals posing as employees of the banking organisation I use contacting me in the same way as other unfortunate individuals have been over the past years.

Neither have likely 99.9% of bank customers (made up number but likely not far off).

 

[fowler9]

I never have had the slightest inclination to subscribe to Facebook, Twitter and the like for the same reason why I will never have anything to do with any form of "internet banking", which is no guarantees can be made that the global criminal fraternity cannot access your personal information.

Keeping all your money under mattress has it's own flaws.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Keeping all your money under mattress has it's own flaws.

Especially in Scouseland....

 

[Bromley boy]

the cars we can expect to see in his drive

Someone wanting to steal two Range Rovers could be en route to an expensive part of rural Cheshire east as we speak .

 

[Andrewh32]

My view on Facebook is it is typical of a company that has grown very rapidly & the management has not been able to keep control. I very much doubt that when Facebook was founded they thought it would have grown to such large concern so quickly so the controls simply don't exist.

I have always been very careful what I say on Facebook and will use it less.

As for online banking forget it no way will I do that.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

My own view would be that coming up with something better designed than Facebook wouldn't be hard at all. The main problem would be that Facebook already has millions of users - and it's hard to attract people to use any social media forum if there aren't already lots of people on it already.

Interesting report I found today. Published by Ofcom in June 2017 so ancient history for the instant news, instant response, instantly forget social media world of today!

Adults' media use and attitudes.
Report 2017
Research Document
Published June 2017

Goes into the number of people owning and using various devices and what for, including social media. As the following quote shows:

People are using a broader range of social media to communicate with different groups


While the number of adults who have a social media profile (76% of all internet users) did not increase overall between 2015 and 2016, people are using a wider range of social media services. Since 2015, social media users are more likely to say they have a profile on six sites or apps: WhatsApp (45% vs. 28%), Instagram (31% vs. 22%), YouTube (30% vs. 22%), Snapchat (23% vs. 12%), Google+ (16% vs. 11%) and Pinterest (12% vs. 7%).

Facebook is still the dominant social media provider, but fewer social media users now only have a Facebook account (43% in 2015 to 32% in 2016).

Of the 86% of adults using the internet, 76% have a social media profile/account. Of those 95% have a Facebook account.

Apparently 14% of the population do not use the internet.

I was interested in the take up of smart phones to see how far behind the curve I am.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Good grief there would be riots on the streets if Facebook were blocked!

No, all the zombies would simply carry on walking the streets staring at their now blank screens. No idea what to do or where to go, unless Facebook somehow got through via Twitter and told them to riot!

 

[Bromley boy]

Interesting report I found today. Published by Ofcom in June 2017 so ancient history for the instant news, instant response, instantly forget social media world of today!

Adults' media use and attitudes.
Report 2017
Research Document
Published June 2017

Goes into the number of people owning and using various devices and what for, including social media. As the following quote shows:



Apparently 14% of the population do not use the internet.

I was interested in the take up of smart phones to see how far behind the curve I am.

Interesting report although the statement that “Smartphones are becoming an essential tool for navigating daily life...” is an accurate one.

I’m surprised the % not using the internet is as high as 14%. There can’t be anyone in the working population these days who isn’t required to use the internet in some form or other.

Having now had a smartphone for around a decade it is difficult to imagine life without one. It’s scary how quickly they have become indispensable.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I have never yet had criminals posing as employees of the banking organisation I use contacting me in the same way as other unfortunate individuals have been over the past years. Obviously I am not foolish enough to speak of specialised security systems that I employ on an open internet site such as this.

I wouldn't be too comfortable. All your tax, benefit, pension, health, passport, telephone etc details are winging backwards and forwards through the ether. Just waiting for someone to hang out a net (travelling post office style) to catch it. If your money is off-shore is it any safer than at a UK institution? If it's in pillowcases in the loft the bugs and mites might eat it! Back to the Land Registry open data to see who owns your house - corporate, commercial, offshore or as an individual - the last one will cost me £3 though.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It probably can’t, but if you use an adblocker on this site you deprive it of revenue.

And therein lies the problem. People want things for free and accept, unthinkingly, the drawbacks. Personally, having established that this is a decent forum, I would rather pay a small amount and it have no adverts, no data analysis etc. I block adds not to deprive this site of revenue but to remove much of the carp I get from other sites. There is no half-way house. Even NRE has adverts all-over it and I regard that as a public information source which could/ought to be funded sufficiently to make it advert free. Interestingly, from the report I quote in the post above by Ofcom:

Close to half of internet users say they have taken some form of action to avoid seeing any online ads


Internet users are also asked whether they have taken any action to avoid seeing online adverts. They are prompted with four options and asked to say which they have ever done, as well as being given the option to say they haven’t taken any actions to avoid seeing online adverts.

As shown in Figure 105, one third (33%) say they opt out of marketing communications, while more than a quarter (27%) say they use ad-blocking filters or software. One in ten (9%) say they deliberately provide false information when required to avoid spam, and only visit ad-free sites (8%).

Close to half (48%) say they have taken any of these actions to avoid seeing any online ads; this incidence is lower among internet users aged 75 and over (28%) and those in DE households (40%). Internet users in AB households are more likely than average to say they have done any of these things (57%).

While not shown in Figure 105, the overall incidence of taking any steps to avoid online adverts increases to 59% for those who say they dislike seeing any online ads. This is because they are more likely to opt out from marketing communications (40% vs. 33% overall) and to use ad-blocking filters (35% vs. 27%).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I’m surprised the % not using the internet is as high as 14%. There can’t be anyone in the working population these days who isn’t required to use the internet in some form or other.

I can't post the associated table, but it's at page 165 of the Ofcom report:

More than half of over-75s are non-users of the internet


Figure 132 shows that 14% of adults in the UK are non-users of the internet, and that this is more likely among over-65s (35% for 65-74s and 56% for those aged 75+) and DEs (27%).

While not shown in the chart, there has been no change in the incidence of non-users in recent years (14% in 2014, 13% in 2015).

It continues on page 166:

Reasons for not going online


More than four in ten non-users say the main reason they are not online is because they don’t see the need

Non-users of the internet are prompted with six options57 and are asked to say which one is their main reason for not going online. More than four in ten of all non-users say it ‘is not for people like them/ they don’t see the need’ (43%), with one in five (19%) saying it is too complicated. One in ten state that it is too expensive (11%), with less than one in ten giving any other response.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wouldn't be too comfortable. All your tax, benefit, pension, health, passport, telephone etc details are winging backwards and forwards through the ether. Just waiting for someone to hang out a net (travelling post office style) to catch it. If your money is off-shore is it any safer than at a UK institution? If it's in pillowcases in the loft the bugs and mites might eat it! Back to the Land Registry open data to see who owns your house - corporate, commercial, offshore or as an individual - the last one will cost me £3 though.

The Land Registry have no access to any of my financial information. I am not concerned with knowledge that can be gained from them legally about my property as this was needed to be submitted when we purchased the property and was dealt with by my acting legal team who saw matters through to purchase completion.

I obviously will not discuss any expanded detailed matters of personal finance on this open internet website.

 

[trash80]

And therein lies the problem. People want things for free and accept, unthinkingly, the drawbacks. Personally, having established that this is a decent forum, I would rather pay a small amount and it have no adverts, no data analysis etc. I block adds not to deprive this site of revenue but to remove much of the carp I get from other sites. There is no half-way house. Even NRE has adverts all-over it and I regard that as a public information source which could/ought to be funded sufficiently to make it advert free. Interestingly, from the report I quote in the post above by Ofcom:

With most adblockers you can whitelist sites which you don't mind ads appearing on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Someone wanting to steal two Range Rovers could be en route to an expensive part of rural Cheshire east as we speak .

They would be sadly disappointed, as my son (not saying which one) now has my Range Rover, as I no longer drive since I suffered from that stroke and my good lady wife now drives a LRD (initials only used).

 

[Bromley boy]

And therein lies the problem. People want things for free and accept, unthinkingly, the drawbacks. Personally, having established that this is a decent forum, I would rather pay a small amount and it have no adverts, no data analysis etc. I block adds not to deprive this site of revenue but to remove much of the carp I get from other sites.

You’re making the assumption that the (small) hardcore of members prepared to pay would generate as much income* as a higher readership free access site, which can be monetised through adverts.

Would it? I don’t know the answer to that, but I doubt it.

I see your point but I must say personally I don’t find the adds on here intrusive, in fact I barely notice them. There are no pop-ups, or similar.

*I’m not sure if the forum makes a profit - I doubt it - but I’m sure they need to cover overheads.

 

[trainmania100]

I use it to keep up to date with many things in my life, I guess it's useful to have.
Part of Facebook is Facebook messenger something I really rely on for gen etc messaging railway related friends
Many groups on Facebook for gen etc it's very useful.
I can see why many people hate it but if there's bullying just leave the group and you won't hear any more

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Here's an example - what about targeting alcohol adverts to alcoholics? Or similarly targeted gambling adverts?
While Facebook don't necessarily allow that sort of targeting, it's not hard to imagine similar, but slightly more subtle, things that will get past.
Might having constant reminders of their problems, through targeted advertising, possibly be harmful to some people's mental health?

Wouldn't the problem there be not the targetting per se, but the fact that alcohol and gambling (or perhaps other things that are harmful to people) can be advertised too freely. I'd have thought that the solution to that would be restrictions on how things like alcohol can be advertised. And perhaps specific restrictions on including those things in targeted adverts.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This site has adverts. That’s how it’s funded. I’m surprised you haven’t seen them, unless you’re using an ad blocker. They are generally at the top of the page.

This site also holds data about its members, like their email addresses, as well as any other information they choose to give. Paul has in the past disclosed the town he lives in, his exact date of birth, the cars we can expect to see in his drive, the name of his wife, where he goes often, and so on. That’s his choice. My point is, it’s a little strange to complain about “internet banking” and Facebook data leaks when you’re giving away lots of information about yourself online.

The difference is the way that Facebook (and others) mine the information to build up a picture about people, then use that data for purposes we may or may not know about and that we may or may not be happy with. You have manually built up a profile of Paul S based on his posts. You have done nothing with it. No harm is done. Facebook does that automatically for every user, continually and holds it forever. I assume Railforum doesn't, I hope it doesn't, otherwise the whole world will know that I am interested in railways and had a delayed trip by train from Stoke-on-Trent to Helensburgh recently!

My personal data HAS been compromised following the failure of one of the big data / credit reference companies. I know, they sent me a letter about it. I am the one that has to sort it out, changing passwords etc. WOW, I can have free access to credit protection software, but only if I give them EVEN MORE personal information in order to activate it. Yes, I regularly sign up to 'my information may be shared with credit reference agencies' in order to open an account etc. but I expect it to be looked after securely and not abused. When signing up for government services, you now have a choice of providers in order to prove your identity. I was surprised by the questions asked. Well not really surprised, more concerned at what they collected, compiled, cross-referenced and kept forever. Which of the following four financial institutions did I open a savings account with in 2005? There follows four options - two potentially correct answers and two very unlikely answers for my personal habits - a bit like 'who wants to be a millionaire' for the fraudster: 50/50 then phone a friend. You know what, I can't remember which bank I opened a savings account with over 10 years ago, yet the computer does know and it will remember, forever. If I get the answer wrong I become a potential identity theft criminal rather than merely the genuine person who doesn't keep really long-term records!