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 :-)

--
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn

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.

--
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

On 9/30/23 2:08 PM, David Ritz wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks, that explains the Safari issue-- but the rest of my gripes still
stand :-)

--
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance
- Confuciu

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!

--
I have no problem helping the needy. I do however have an issue with
funding the lazy.

On 2023-10-02 10:39, Capt'n Butler wrote:
> 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!

https://developer.apple.com/bug-reporting/

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-02 10:39, Capt'n Butler wrote:
> 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!

I just re-read that - what about other apps, say, acrobat?

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-02, Capt'n Butler <rhett@tara.net> wrote:
> 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!

None of what you describe is normal.

My bet is you have some older software installed that is misbehaving to
cause at least one or two of these issues.

At any rate, you should definitely report these issues to Apple. And
consider reinstalling macOS without migrating.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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 2023-10-03 19:46:49 +0000, super70s said:
> 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.

Even more stupid is that most people do not have a static internet
connection, so their IP address is constantly changing, which means
these idiotic systems keep saying you're logging in from a new device
when you are not. X-(

It's frustrating for those who know why, but for the techno novices it
is confusing and can be scary (they think the account has been hacked).

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 08:07, J Burns wrote:
> 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.

Dollar General unethical? Perish the thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpUV--2Jao&ab_channel=WendoverProductions

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-06 12:07:43 +0000, J Burns said:

> 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.

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.

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 10/6/23 8:30 AM, Alan Browne wrote:

>
> Dollar General unethical?  Perish the thought.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpUV--2Jao&ab_channel=WendoverProductions
>
>
Until the 1960s there were 3 independent supermarkets in town, two of
them almost next door on Main Street. The last one closed about 1990.
All along, the population was about 500.

In 10 years, it jumped to 700 in 2000. An experienced grocer opened a
supermarket where one of the others had been, on Main Street. He may
have held on three years, but very few came in.

Dollar General came in. Inside, the bright new building was disgusting
compared to the century-old premises of the defunct shops. Things looked
dirty. Aisles were so narrow that it was hard to pass another customer.
I never knew what I would be charged because items weren't marked and
prices on shelves were often incorrect.

Headquarters knew every item what was shipped to the store and every
item that was scanned for sale, but if a grocery item like table salt
ran out, they might not bother to send more for a year. I could tell the
staff were unhappy.

The population is now 800: 60% higher than when the town supported three
supermarkets, and I'm sure incomes have risen. I think as residents
became more prosperous, they preferred driving 10 miles to shop at a
giant store. It wasn't just a matter of wasting time and money to drive
there. The big stores had the floor space for a far wider selection than
anyone needed. All that walking and searching would fatigue a shopper
and he'd end up spending his grocery money more foolishly than at a
simpler store back home. Still, residents preferred the big-store
experience.

On 2023-10-07 02:59:32 +0000, J Burns said:
> 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.

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.

>>> 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.

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:

>>
>> 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.
>
I imagine such attempts are common. A teen might copy a password at
Grandmother's house, then go home and order headphones. With a 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:
> On 10/7/23 1:25 AM, Your Name wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I imagine such attempts are common. A teen might copy a password at
> Grandmother's house, then go home and order headphones. With a
> different shipping address, I imagine Amazon would require
> authentication.

For a teen that may or may not be a problem. For a proper hacker, it's
likely to be nothing at all.

>>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

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.

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.

On 2023-10-08 20:13, J Burns wrote:

>
> 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.

Red flag 1. The IRS (and police) do not announce arrest warrants. If
they are arresting you or causing you to be arrested, you will be about
the last to know. (Some exceptions occur).

Red flag 2. The IRS wants your money paid in somewhat traditional
fashion (cheques, direct withdrawal, payment via your bank, possibly
credit cards). They won't "propose" WalMart as the sole means of
payment even *if* it is a possible means of payment.

> 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.

No you won't. Because you're suspicious and smart - you will call back
separately and find out what the state of your account is.

Here (a civilized country north of the lower 48 states), I would simply
log into my tax accounts (Fed, provincial, personal, businesses) to see
what is going on.

The fed/prov governments here would *never* call to ask for a payment.
If something is awry you get a letter in the mail and possibly an e-mail
*alerting* you to the fact that you should log in and check your tax
account status.

> 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.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-09 00:13:58 +0000, J Burns said:
> 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.

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.

>>> 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 22:57, Your Name wrote:
>
> 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/>

I saw a quick video where there are instructions at the top of a high
school exam. The last instruction said first student to stand up and
wave his hands would get 5 extra points.

Almost the entire class blew threw it. One kid looked around in
disbelief and then collected the bonus.

> 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.

You buy the "media", you license the "content".

OTOH, it used to be the license for Photoshop would give you unlimited,
forever run of the product (as long as you didn't update the OS causing
PS to crash).

Now PS is rented by the month. Other products as well (1Password has
gone rental).

Well, not by me. I refuse to rent s/w.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

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 2023-10-09 11:15, J Burns wrote:
> 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.

Exactly. The fraudulent acquirer has committed the crime. Not the
person who rightly "owns" the identity.

> 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.

Never ask for a number. Use the number that you know to call the
rightful person to see what is going on.

>
> That would be identity theft, so why wouldn't Biden be responsible for
> the money I sent to the impersonator?

If he didn't do the illegal deed, he is not responsible.

If someone steals my car and uses it to rob a bank, he is responsible -
not me[1].

The whole point of identity theft is too have as much convincing info as
possible.

This is also why you independently check what is going on before
committing to sending money to anyone - and do that checking
independently of any info provided by the suspected scammer.

-----
[1] This actually happened to one of our engineers. He calls the police
to report his car stolen (from the company lot) and they reply: "Stay
right there."
They show up and were asking some very terse questions. He was
confused. We (other employees) told the police he was there all day.
Then the police told him his car had been used in (IIRC) an armed robbery.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-09 11:19, J Burns wrote:
> 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?

This is why it's an issue and the ultimate victim is you.

The IRS do not care if you got robbed - no matter how it was done.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.