But I'm not at all happy with the slower boot, too-dark default
wallpaper (which I changed), the wipe-out of Safari credentials
causing the computer to be unrecognized on financial and most other
websites with accounts requiring re-logins and re-authentication.
On Saturday, 30 September 2023 12:43 -0400,
in article <uf9j7h$10qco$1@dont-email.me>,
Capt'n Butler <rhett@tara.net> wrote:
But I'm not at all happy with the slower boot, too-dark default
wallpaper (which I changed), the wipe-out of Safari credentials
causing the computer to be unrecognized on financial and most other
websites with accounts requiring re-logins and re-authentication.
Most sites depend on browser version, as part of the authentication
process. When you installed a newer version of Safari,
reauthentication is required, as the sites involved have never
previoously seen you log in with this browser version/IP address/MAC
address.
Your Safari credentials are not being wiped out; they're being
confirmed.
Easy install of Sonoma 14.0 onto a smoothly running, fully-updated macOS
13, 2019, 21.5", 1 TB fusion drive iMac.
But I'm not at all happy with the slower boot, too-dark default
wallpaper (which I changed), the wipe-out of Safari credentials causing
the computer to be unrecognized on financial and most other websites
with accounts requiring re-logins and re-authentication.
And hey, guess who-- it's my old friend the spinning beach ball who I
haven't seen for years. Hi buddy :-)
On 9/30/23 12:43 PM, Capt'n Butler wrote:
Easy install of Sonoma 14.0 onto a smoothly running, fully-updated
macOS 13, 2019, 21.5", 1 TB fusion drive iMac.
But I'm not at all happy with the slower boot, too-dark default
wallpaper (which I changed), the wipe-out of Safari credentials
causing the computer to be unrecognized on financial and most other
websites with accounts requiring re-logins and re-authentication.
And hey, guess who-- it's my old friend the spinning beach ball who I
haven't seen for years. Hi buddy :-)
One more gripe: delayed printing start.
Mow, printing from Pages or Numbers, the printer no longer starts
immediately when you hit PRINT. Nothing happens for three or four
seconds at which time the printer light comes on and the print job starts.
Yeah, 3-4 seconds is insignificant...but somethin' ain't right!
On 9/30/23 12:43 PM, Capt'n Butler wrote:
Easy install of Sonoma 14.0 onto a smoothly running, fully-updated
macOS 13, 2019, 21.5", 1 TB fusion drive iMac.
But I'm not at all happy with the slower boot, too-dark default
wallpaper (which I changed), the wipe-out of Safari credentials
causing the computer to be unrecognized on financial and most other
websites with accounts requiring re-logins and re-authentication.
And hey, guess who-- it's my old friend the spinning beach ball who I
haven't seen for years. Hi buddy :-)
One more gripe: delayed printing start.
Mow, printing from Pages or Numbers, the printer no longer starts
immediately when you hit PRINT. Nothing happens for three or four
seconds at which time the printer light comes on and the print job starts.
Yeah, 3-4 seconds is insignificant...but somethin' ain't right!
On 9/30/23 12:43 PM, Capt'n Butler wrote:
Easy install of Sonoma 14.0 onto a smoothly running, fully-updated
macOS 13, 2019, 21.5", 1 TB fusion drive iMac.
But I'm not at all happy with the slower boot, too-dark default
wallpaper (which I changed), the wipe-out of Safari credentials
causing the computer to be unrecognized on financial and most other
websites with accounts requiring re-logins and re-authentication.
And hey, guess who-- it's my old friend the spinning beach ball who I
haven't seen for years. Hi buddy :-)
One more gripe: delayed printing start.
Mow, printing from Pages or Numbers, the printer no longer starts
immediately when you hit PRINT. Nothing happens for three or four
seconds at which time the printer light comes on and the print job
starts.
Yeah, 3-4 seconds is insignificant...but somethin' ain't right!
Most sites depend on browser version, as part of the authentication
process. When you installed a newer version of Safari,
reauthentication is required, as the sites involved have never
previoously seen you log in with this browser version/IP address/MAC
address.
In article <r94030q4-0759-38r7-1s68-qn6004113n82@zvaqfcevat.pbz>,
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
Most sites depend on browser version, as part of the authentication
process. When you installed a newer version of Safari,
reauthentication is required, as the sites involved have never
previoously seen you log in with this browser version/IP address/MAC
address.
What annoys me is when they feel the need to email you some kind of acknowledgment after every time you log in, to "stay logged on with this trusted device." PayPal does that every time and I don't think there's
any way to turn it off.
In article <r94030q4-0759-38r7-1s68-qn6004113n82@zvaqfcevat.pbz>,
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
Most sites depend on browser version, as part of the authentication
process. When you installed a newer version of Safari,
reauthentication is required, as the sites involved have never
previoously seen you log in with this browser version/IP address/MAC
address.
What annoys me is when they feel the need to email you some kind of acknowledgment after every time you log in, to "stay logged on with this trusted device." PayPal does that every time and I don't think there's
any way to turn it off.
On 10/3/23 3:46 PM, super70s wrote:
In article <r94030q4-0759-38r7-1s68-qn6004113n82@zvaqfcevat.pbz>,
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
Most sites depend on browser version, as part of the authentication
process. When you installed a newer version of Safari,
reauthentication is required, as the sites involved have never
previoously seen you log in with this browser version/IP address/MAC
address.
What annoys me is when they feel the need to email you some kind of
acknowledgment after every time you log in, to "stay logged on with this
trusted device." PayPal does that every time and I don't think there's
any way to turn it off.
The gas company always does that to me. I tell them to remember me and
they always forget. I wonder if I'd have the same problem with Firefox.
It's worse when Dollar General does it. I want to see if something is in stock before running the errand, but often they won't accept my password until I read their terms of service and privacy policy. They warn that
one has a read time of 31 minutes and the other 16 minutes. It could be
a way to get customers to agree to unethical practices.
On 10/3/23 3:46 PM, super70s wrote:
In article <r94030q4-0759-38r7-1s68-qn6004113n82@zvaqfcevat.pbz>,
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
Most sites depend on browser version, as part of the authentication
process. When you installed a newer version of Safari,
reauthentication is required, as the sites involved have never
previoously seen you log in with this browser version/IP address/MAC
address.
What annoys me is when they feel the need to email you some kind of
acknowledgment after every time you log in, to "stay logged on with this
trusted device." PayPal does that every time and I don't think there's
any way to turn it off.
The gas company always does that to me. I tell them to remember me and
they always forget. I wonder if I'd have the same problem with Firefox.
It's worse when Dollar General does it. I want to see if something is
in stock before running the errand, but often they won't accept my
password until I read their terms of service and privacy policy. They
warn that one has a read time of 31 minutes and the other 16 minutes.
It could be a way to get customers to agree to unethical practices.
On 2023-10-06 12:07:43 +0000, J Burns said:
The gas company always does that to me. I tell them to remember me and
they always forget. I wonder if I'd have the same problem with Firefox.
Possibly a cookies problem. Apple's increased security option can lead
to cookies not being saved. You might need to set the security to a
lower option or enable cookies for that website.
With the increased cyber-security most places are doing these days, the "Remember Me" option can be useless for website you don't visit every
day / week. Systems will often log you out due to "inactivity", so if
you only go there once a month to pay the bill, you might well have been logged out since last time. There's one website I visit every day, but
even that will log me out occasionally as a "security feature".
It's worse when Dollar General does it. I want to see if something is
in stock before running the errand, but often they won't accept my
password until I read their terms of service and privacy policy. They
warn that one has a read time of 31 minutes and the other 16 minutes.
It could be a way to get customers to agree to unethical practices.
Almost nobody ever bothers to actually read terms and conditions on
anything. They just tick the box to say they have.
Dollar General unethical? Perish the thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpUV--2Jao&ab_channel=WendoverProductions
On 10/6/23 5:48 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2023-10-06 12:07:43 +0000, J Burns said:
The gas company always does that to me. I tell them to remember me and
they always forget. I wonder if I'd have the same problem with Firefox.
Possibly a cookies problem. Apple's increased security option can lead
to cookies not being saved. You might need to set the security to a
lower option or enable cookies for that website.
With the increased cyber-security most places are doing these days, the
"Remember Me" option can be useless for website you don't visit every
day / week. Systems will often log you out due to "inactivity", so if
you only go there once a month to pay the bill, you might well have
been logged out since last time. There's one website I visit every day,
but even that will log me out occasionally as a "security feature".
I remember now. I check "trust this browser." I still have to log in
the next time, but Safari does it for me. "Trust this browser" is
supposed to mean that the next time I log in, I don't have to wait for
them to email a code.
With other sites, I need verification only if an update has affected
what they can tell about my browser. The gas company requires it every
time.
Somebody who got into my Amazon account might harass me by having stuff
I didn't want shipped to me.
Somebody who got into my gas account couldn't have gas shipped to me. I
don't know what harm they could do.
It's worse when Dollar General does it. I want to see if something is
in stock before running the errand, but often they won't accept my
password until I read their terms of service and privacy policy. They
warn that one has a read time of 31 minutes and the other 16 minutes.
It could be a way to get customers to agree to unethical practices.
Almost nobody ever bothers to actually read terms and conditions on
anything. They just tick the box to say they have.
....and yet websites demand that you say you read them. I find Dollar General's privacy policy creepy. It looks as if checking the box gives
them permission to sell my information to anyone willing to pay. I've
quit logging on.
On 2023-10-07 02:59:32 +0000, J Burns said:
Somebody who got into my Amazon account might harass me by having
stuff I didn't want shipped to me.
If you've got Amazon credit or store your payment details, then they
could use your account to buy stuff at your expense to be sent to
themselves.
Somebody who got into my gas account couldn't have gas shipped to me.
I don't know what harm they could do.
Well, technically they could have you gas cut off. They could also potentially use that to gain information to steal your identity.
The company is basically covering themselves legally, so if something
goes wrong they can simply turn around and say "we did warn you" or "we
did say XYZ is not covered". In some cases, if you do somthing break
those terms and conditions, then you can legally have your service
terminated (e.g. sharing Netflix passwords).
To some degree, those terms and conditions also legally cover you if the cmpany does something they shouldn't which breaks their terms and
conditions.
On 10/7/23 1:25 AM, Your Name wrote:
On 2023-10-07 02:59:32 +0000, J Burns said:I imagine such attempts are common. A teen might copy a password at Grandmother's house, then go home and order headphones. With a
Somebody who got into my Amazon account might harass me by having stuff
I didn't want shipped to me.
If you've got Amazon credit or store your payment details, then they
could use your account to buy stuff at your expense to be sent to
themselves.
different shipping address, I imagine Amazon would require
authentication.
Somebody who got into my gas account couldn't have gas shipped to me. I
don't know what harm they could do.
Well, technically they could have you gas cut off. They could also
potentially use that to gain information to steal your identity.
That used to be called impersonation, and the institution that was
fooled was at fault. "Identity" is the fact of being that person.
Calling it identity theft seems like saying the fraudster took your
rights, and it's your responsibility, not that of the institution that
was fooled, even if the fraudster hacked into that institution's files
to get the data to impersonate you.
Supposedly, the burden is on police to corroborate a neighbor who
thinks she saw me run into her trash can on a bicycle. Conviction
requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. "identity theft" is like
saying I'm at fault for failing to prevent her from thinking somebody
else looked convincingly like me. Presumably, I'd be at fault for not
wearing a mask at all times so that in case of trash can trouble she
wouldn't even know if the perp looked like me.
The company is basically covering themselves legally, so if something
goes wrong they can simply turn around and say "we did warn you" or "we
did say XYZ is not covered". In some cases, if you do somthing break
those terms and conditions, then you can legally have your service
terminated (e.g. sharing Netflix passwords).
To some degree, those terms and conditions also legally cover you if
the cmpany does something they shouldn't which breaks their terms and
conditions.
A few weeks ago I started getting 5 phishing mails a day, ostensibly
from different organizations. I guess I did business with a company who
sold my address. In this case I know it wasn't Dollar General because I haven't given them that address. However, their 16-minute privacy terms
sound like permission for them to do that and worse.
On 2023-10-07 21:45:25 +0000, J Burns said:
That used to be called impersonation, and the institution that was
fooled was at fault. "Identity" is the fact of being that person.
Calling it identity theft seems like saying the fraudster took your
rights, and it's your responsibility, not that of the institution that
was fooled, even if the fraudster hacked into that institution's files
to get the data to impersonate you.
Supposedly, the burden is on police to corroborate a neighbor who
thinks she saw me run into her trash can on a bicycle. Conviction
requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. "identity theft" is like
saying I'm at fault for failing to prevent her from thinking somebody
else looked convincingly like me. Presumably, I'd be at fault for not
wearing a mask at all times so that in case of trash can trouble she
wouldn't even know if the perp looked like me.
If someone can get your personal infromation, they can get a new identiification documents (driver's license, passport, etc.) and then go around pretending to be you - getting bank loans using your property as security, buying exepnsive items on credit, etc. It can be extremely
messy trying to sort it out and prove it wasn't actually you, and in the meantime your credit rating will be in the garbage and your bank account
may well be frozen.
A few weeks ago I started getting 5 phishing mails a day, ostensibly
from different organizations. I guess I did business with a company
who sold my address. In this case I know it wasn't Dollar General
because I haven't given them that address. However, their 16-minute
privacy terms sound like permission for them to do that and worse.
The internet is awash with awful terms and conditions, especially from
the money-grubbing companies like Google who will happily sell you data
to anyone and everyone. Many of the hosting websites (such as Imgur for images, TikTok and YouTube for short videos) say in the terms and
conditions that once you upload the file, they can do whatever they like
with it, including selling it as "stock" photo / video, so your photos
might suddenly appear in adverts.
Suppose a lady phones and says she's with the IRS and they're about to
get an arrest warrant because of a $10,000 mistake I made on my taxes,
and she's sure it was an oversight and it can be settled without an
arrest if I'll email an electronic money order from Walmart.
Not recalling a $10,000 error, I'm suspicious. I ask questions. She
answers them correctly because she knows as much as I do about the IRS.
So I send the payment.
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can prove
the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees, they owe
me $10,000.
On 10/7/23 6:32 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2023-10-07 21:45:25 +0000, J Burns said:
That used to be called impersonation, and the institution that was
fooled was at fault. "Identity" is the fact of being that person.
Calling it identity theft seems like saying the fraudster took your
rights, and it's your responsibility, not that of the institution that
was fooled, even if the fraudster hacked into that institution's files
to get the data to impersonate you.
Supposedly, the burden is on police to corroborate a neighbor who
thinks she saw me run into her trash can on a bicycle. Conviction
requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. "identity theft" is like
saying I'm at fault for failing to prevent her from thinking somebody
else looked convincingly like me. Presumably, I'd be at fault for not
wearing a mask at all times so that in case of trash can trouble she
wouldn't even know if the perp looked like me.
If someone can get your personal infromation, they can get a new
identiification documents (driver's license, passport, etc.) and then
go around pretending to be you - getting bank loans using your property
as security, buying exepnsive items on credit, etc. It can be extremely
messy trying to sort it out and prove it wasn't actually you, and in
the meantime your credit rating will be in the garbage and your bank
account may well be frozen.
Suppose a lady phones and says she's with the IRS and they're about to
get an arrest warrant because of a $10,000 mistake I made on my taxes,
and she's sure it was an oversight and it can be settled without an
arrest if I'll email an electronic money order from Walmart.
Not recalling a $10,000 error, I'm suspicious. I ask questions. She
answers them correctly because she knows as much as I do about the IRS.
So I send the payment.
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
A few weeks ago I started getting 5 phishing mails a day, ostensibly
from different organizations. I guess I did business with a company who
sold my address. In this case I know it wasn't Dollar General because I
haven't given them that address. However, their 16-minute privacy terms
sound like permission for them to do that and worse.
The internet is awash with awful terms and conditions, especially from
the money-grubbing companies like Google who will happily sell you data
to anyone and everyone. Many of the hosting websites (such as Imgur for
images, TikTok and YouTube for short videos) say in the terms and
conditions that once you upload the file, they can do whatever they
like with it, including selling it as "stock" photo / video, so your
photos might suddenly appear in adverts.
I'm supposed to agree to privacy terms that would make it okay to sell information to "identity thieves," and you say nobody reads those
agreements.
Almost nobody ever reads the terms and conditions on anything.
Here's just one of many many examples:
TOS agreements require giving up first born - and users gladly consent <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/nobody-reads-tos-agreements-even-ones-that-demand-first-born-as-payment/>
Most software you "buy" (either as a download or as a physical disk) is
not actually owned by you. That includes the operating system on your
device. The terms and conditions usually state that you are purchasing a *license* to use the software. The developer can cancel that license any
time they want to if you break any of the terms and conditions. Very few developers have actually done that, especially for the general public,
simply because it's not worth the time and money to do so, but legally
they could.
On 2023-10-08 20:13, J Burns wrote:
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
Nope.
The IRS didn't perpetuate the fraud. The money is gone and you will
never see it again. Ever. And the IRS will still want their money if
they (in fact) were owned money from you.
On 10/8/23 8:37 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-08 20:13, J Burns wrote:Exactly. Why should it be different if a stranger obtains money by impersonating me?
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
Nope.
The IRS didn't perpetuate the fraud. The money is gone and you will
never see it again. Ever. And the IRS will still want their money if
they (in fact) were owned money from you.
On 2023-10-09 00:13:58 +0000, J Burns said:
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
The person is just impersonating an IRS employee, but hasn't stolen
their identity (even if just telling you the name of a real IRS employee).
"Identity theft" usually involves obtaining documental "proof" that they
are that other person, e.g. getting a new birth certificate or drivers license, so they can then go to the bank and take out a loan or buy a
car under that other person's name.
They're two different crimes, although there may be some cross-over
between them as well.
On 10/8/23 10:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2023-10-09 00:13:58 +0000, J Burns said:
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
The person is just impersonating an IRS employee, but hasn't stolen
their identity (even if just telling you the name of a real IRS
employee).
"Identity theft" usually involves obtaining documental "proof" that
they are that other person, e.g. getting a new birth certificate or
drivers license, so they can then go to the bank and take out a loan
or buy a car under that other person's name.
They're two different crimes, although there may be some cross-over
between them as well.
According to the dictionary in Ventura, identity theft is the fraudulent acquisition and use of a person's private identifying information.
Suppose the caller says he's Joe Biden, and he wants to give me a break because prison is no place for the very wealthy. Suppose I know Biden's
cell phone number because he used to phone me for advice.
So I say, "Thanks, Joe. I'll send the money order right away, then phone
to be sure you got it. What's your number?" So he gives me Biden's
number, and it's correct.
That would be identity theft, so why wouldn't Biden be responsible for
the money I sent to the impersonator?
On 10/8/23 8:37 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-10-08 20:13, J Burns wrote:
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
Nope.
The IRS didn't perpetuate the fraud. The money is gone and you will
never see it again. Ever. And the IRS will still want their money if
they (in fact) were owned money from you.
Exactly. Why should it be different if a stranger obtains money by impersonating me?
On 10/8/23 10:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2023-10-09 00:13:58 +0000, J Burns said:
A week later, the IRS audits me. They say they know nothing about a
$10,000 error. I don't know who impersonated an IRS agent, but under
the concept of identity theft, the IRS is responsible. Until they can
prove the person who phoned was not one of their 144,000 employees,
they owe me $10,000.
The person is just impersonating an IRS employee, but hasn't stolen
their identity (even if just telling you the name of a real IRS
employee).
"Identity theft" usually involves obtaining documental "proof" that
they are that other person, e.g. getting a new birth certificate or
drivers license, so they can then go to the bank and take out a loan or
buy a car under that other person's name.
They're two different crimes, although there may be some cross-over
between them as well.
According to the dictionary in Ventura, identity theft is the
fraudulent acquisition and use of a person's private identifying
information.
Suppose the caller says he's Joe Biden, and he wants to give me a break because prison is no place for the very wealthy. Suppose I know Biden's
cell phone number because he used to phone me for advice.
So I say, "Thanks, Joe. I'll send the money order right away, then
phone to be sure you got it. What's your number?" So he gives me
Biden's number, and it's correct.
That would be identity theft, so why wouldn't Biden be responsible for
the money I sent to the impersonator?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 481 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:15:09 |
| Calls: | 9,538 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,653 |
| Messages: | 6,138,946 |
| Posted today: | 1 |