"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| Probably, you also don't buy anything online because they will know who
| you are. You only pay cash.
|

I avoid buying online. And I avoid charge cards. I use
them. I have 3. But I only use them for certain things.
Mostly work expenses. I also use them for things where
there's no other realistic option, like automatic payment
for web hosting.

I don't shop online in general. I don't support Amazon,
for privacy and monopoly reasons. I haven't bought a
newsgroup account for the same reason. I don't use
Paypal or other superfluous payment systems, like debit
cards. It's just giving more money to middlemen. But
Paypal is also a special case for me. Back when I was
selling my own shareware, Paypal started offering accounts
to developers to take payment. The developer had to open
a bank account under their control. Paypal was frequently
freezing the account, sometimes due to customer complaints,
sometimes for reasons unknown.

I'd be happy to
mail a usenet server company a $10 bill for an anonymous
account, but the vast majority of businesses are simply
incompetent and ignorant when it comes to security.
There's far too much data online that doesn't belong there.

I don't see any reason to trust so much automation.
It's not just about privacy. It's also about the hacks that
we hear about, and the many that we don't. If you give
out info, credit card numbers, etc. then that info can be sold,
but it also may be stolen. Here are three cases just this week:

A plastic surgeon got hacked and naked photos of customers
ended up online. They're suing:

https://www.bitdefender.com/blog/hotforsecurity/women-sue-plastic-surgery-after-hack-saw-their-naked-photos-posted-online/

Detailed personal info from US military personnel is being
sold for pennies by "databrokers":

https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/07/data_brokers_military_data/

The US FTC had to fight in court to release information
about their investigation into Kochava, a datamining company
that buys info from the likes of cellphone app makers and
then sells it to anyone who will pay -- mostly advertisers.
Typical data will include your physical location in real time,
all the time. That, in turn, leads to a collection of data regarding
religion, politics, social life, shopping habits, and so on.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/11/data-brokers-staggering-sale-of-sensitive-info-exposed-in-unsealed-ftc-filing/

Were you unaware that datamining has become a massive
industry? Everyone makes their choice about how to deal with
the increasing automation and the barely recognized criminal
possibilities it opens up. To opt for maximum privacy is
not paranoid. To opt for convenience as you've done is not
unreasonable. But there are costs with either choice.

I'm wondering why we haven't had any blockbuster disaster
movies yet about how the whole world goes automated, then
Marxist terrorists play the ultimate Robin Hood, randomly
reassigning bank accounts and deeds, quickly leading to world
war. How does humanity carry on with civilization when
relationships, ownership, law, history and such are all run
by computers, with no element of personal trust? And that's
not even bringing AI into the picture. I'm just talking about a
world here trust is no longer possible because the only truth
is database contents. If your house deed is transferred to someone
else and the history of it altered, you won't be able to have
your city clerk arrested. No one will be answerable. Only the
database will hold evidence of the facts. Reality
itself will become undefinable. (If some Hollywood mogul uses
my idea, you're my witness that I came up with it first. :)

On 2023-11-10 15:14, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | Probably, you also don't buy anything online because they will know who
> | you are. You only pay cash.
> |
>
> I avoid buying online. And I avoid charge cards. I use
> them. I have 3. But I only use them for certain things.
> Mostly work expenses. I also use them for things where
> there's no other realistic option, like automatic payment
> for web hosting.

That's a very limited life.

There are many things I get now online which are simply impossible to
buy elsewhere.

> I don't shop online in general. I don't support Amazon,
> for privacy and monopoly reasons. I haven't bought a
> newsgroup account for the same reason. I don't use
> Paypal or other superfluous payment systems, like debit
> cards. It's just giving more money to middlemen. But
> Paypal is also a special case for me. Back when I was
> selling my own shareware, Paypal started offering accounts
> to developers to take payment. The developer had to open
> a bank account under their control. Paypal was frequently
> freezing the account, sometimes due to customer complaints,
> sometimes for reasons unknown.
>
> I'd be happy to
> mail a usenet server company a $10 bill for an anonymous
> account, but the vast majority of businesses are simply
> incompetent and ignorant when it comes to security.
> There's far too much data online that doesn't belong there.
>
> I don't see any reason to trust so much automation.
> It's not just about privacy. It's also about the hacks that
> we hear about, and the many that we don't. If you give
> out info, credit card numbers, etc. then that info can be sold,
> but it also may be stolen. Here are three cases just this week:

Heh, Individual.NET doesn't accept payment by card, but by bank
transfer. In the EU, even knowing the bank account data of someone
doesn't allow anyone to extract money from it. Organizations do publish
their bank account number on Internet, no problem.

In the case that Individual.NET is hacked or suffers a traditional
robbery, they don't get any data from me that is secret. There would be
no privacy breach.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-11-10 15:14, Newyana2 wrote:
> > "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> >
> > | Probably, you also don't buy anything online because they will know who
> > | you are. You only pay cash.
> >
> > I avoid buying online. And I avoid charge cards. I use
> > them. I have 3. But I only use them for certain things.
> > Mostly work expenses. I also use them for things where
> > there's no other realistic option, like automatic payment
> > for web hosting.
>
> That's a very limited life.
>
> There are many things I get now online which are simply impossible to
> buy elsewhere.

Same here. Perhaps not that many and some are not impossible but much
more convenient.

I just don't understand this extreme reluctance (fear?) for a rather
safe way of doing business.

Perhaps it's - at least partly - a US thing, with much less restricted
/ absent privacy laws, less secure payment systems, etc..

For me, an online purchase at a 'local' webshop is not any less
secure than an in-person purchase in a shop (unless it's a small item
which I can take home myself (and I pay with cash)). If I pay by card,
it's the same 'risk' as online. If the item needs to be delivered, it's
the same 'risk' as online.

The only risk assesment needed, is if I can trust the webshop. But
that also goes for physical shop, trader, etc..

[More of the same deleted.]

> > I'd be happy to
> > mail a usenet server company a $10 bill for an anonymous
> > account, but the vast majority of businesses are simply
> > incompetent and ignorant when it comes to security.
> > There's far too much data online that doesn't belong there.
> >
> > I don't see any reason to trust so much automation.
> > It's not just about privacy. It's also about the hacks that
> > we hear about, and the many that we don't. If you give
> > out info, credit card numbers, etc. then that info can be sold,
> > but it also may be stolen. Here are three cases just this week:
>
> Heh, Individual.NET doesn't accept payment by card,

But they can be paid via Paypal, which he doesn't like for the reasons
he gave.

> but by bank
> transfer. In the EU, even knowing the bank account data of someone
> doesn't allow anyone to extract money from it. Organizations do publish
> their bank account number on Internet, no problem.
>
> In the case that Individual.NET is hacked or suffers a traditional
> robbery, they don't get any data from me that is secret. There would be
> no privacy breach.

Exactly. It's as safe as any other bank transfer, which is very, very
safe in the EU.

I've just checked my News.Individual.Net data: The have my name - so
have you (plural)! :-) - a throw-away email address and my bank account
number (IBAN). They do *not* have my address, nor any other information.

My hairdresser has more information on me! :-)

On 2023-11-10 17:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-11-10 15:14, Newyana2 wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> | Probably, you also don't buy anything online because they will know who
>>> | you are. You only pay cash.
>>>
>>> I avoid buying online. And I avoid charge cards. I use
>>> them. I have 3. But I only use them for certain things.
>>> Mostly work expenses. I also use them for things where
>>> there's no other realistic option, like automatic payment
>>> for web hosting.
>>
>> That's a very limited life.
>>
>> There are many things I get now online which are simply impossible to
>> buy elsewhere.
>
> Same here. Perhaps not that many and some are not impossible but much
> more convenient.

Coffee grinder, non electric.

There are no longer coffee grinders in the supermarkets I visit normally.

Just an example of something I bought recently online :-)

I probably can find one somewhere else in Madrid (which is not my usual
living place), but I might had to explore for days and expend a lot in
gasoline or buses.

The dust bags of my old vacuum cleaner. It is old, but I found a place
somewhere in central Europe that had them.

A box with assorted glassware (dishes), of the exact same model as those
I have in my kitchen, so that I fill the broken ones with the same ones.

A little bag of 3.2A glass fuses.

A liquid that says repels fog in the car window (not tried yet), after
reading the comments pro and con of different people on different makes.

A small multimeter that runs on AAA batteries.

A small IR body temperature thermometer that runs on AAA bateries.

A DVD + CD + Book with songs for kids, obtained in a day and a half; I
had asked for the same one at a prestiguous shopping place here, which
failed to deliver after promising "this weekend", then said two weeks (I
was travelling across the pong in 3 days and needed it as a present, fast).

>
> I just don't understand this extreme reluctance (fear?) for a rather
> safe way of doing business.

Right.

> Perhaps it's - at least partly - a US thing, with much less restricted
> / absent privacy laws, less secure payment systems, etc..

Possible.

> For me, an online purchase at a 'local' webshop is not any less
> secure than an in-person purchase in a shop (unless it's a small item
> which I can take home myself (and I pay with cash)). If I pay by card,
> it's the same 'risk' as online. If the item needs to be delivered, it's
> the same 'risk' as online.

And with some vendors, we can have the goods delivered at an
intermediary place, so the delivery chap doesn't see my home :-p

>
> The only risk assesment needed, is if I can trust the webshop. But
> that also goes for physical shop, trader, etc..

Right.

> [More of the same deleted.]
>
>>> I'd be happy to
>>> mail a usenet server company a $10 bill for an anonymous
>>> account, but the vast majority of businesses are simply
>>> incompetent and ignorant when it comes to security.
>>> There's far too much data online that doesn't belong there.
>>>
>>> I don't see any reason to trust so much automation.
>>> It's not just about privacy. It's also about the hacks that
>>> we hear about, and the many that we don't. If you give
>>> out info, credit card numbers, etc. then that info can be sold,
>>> but it also may be stolen. Here are three cases just this week:
>>
>> Heh, Individual.NET doesn't accept payment by card,
>
> But they can be paid via Paypal, which he doesn't like for the reasons
> he gave.

Well, we have a choice of methods.

I don't like Paypal too much, but a few times I have to use it.

For instance, to park on the street of Madrid on areas with metered
parking, I can pay with cash (first I have to find a meter post, fight
its interface, pay, get the paper slip, go back to my car to place the
slip). Or pay with a third party app. Do I trust that third party to
have my debit card on record (for multiple payments), or is it
preferable to use Paypal?

Grmpfff...

>
>> but by bank
>> transfer. In the EU, even knowing the bank account data of someone
>> doesn't allow anyone to extract money from it. Organizations do publish
>> their bank account number on Internet, no problem.
>>
>> In the case that Individual.NET is hacked or suffers a traditional
>> robbery, they don't get any data from me that is secret. There would be
>> no privacy breach.
>
> Exactly. It's as safe as any other bank transfer, which is very, very
> safe in the EU.
>
> I've just checked my News.Individual.Net data: The have my name - so
> have you (plural)! :-) - a throw-away email address and my bank account
> number (IBAN). They do *not* have my address, nor any other information.
>
> My hairdresser has more information on me! :-)

:-D

Many online places ask a lot more data.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 11/10/2023 11:01 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Perhaps it's - at least partly - a US thing, with much less restricted
> / absent privacy laws, less secure payment systems, etc..
>
> For me, an online purchase at a 'local' webshop is not any less
> secure than an in-person purchase in a shop (unless it's a small item
> which I can take home myself (and I pay with cash)). If I pay by card,
> it's the same 'risk' as online. If the item needs to be delivered, it's
> the same 'risk' as online.

My local computer store is very secure. I cannot order anything online
from them, *unless I have a smart phone*. They are perfectly happy to accept
my credit card, if I visit in person. And it wasn't always that way, but it's
that way now.

Paul

On 10/11/2023 17:53, Paul wrote:
>
>
> *unless I have a smart phone*.

Liar. A smart phone is no different from a desktop or laptop when
it comes to ordering things online. A smartphone is not necessary but
for some it is convenience because they are on it 24/7. If you meant ordering by phone then any phone can do the job. No smartphone necessary.

Why do you keep lying on these newsgroups. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? How old are you?.

Frank Slootweg wrote on 11/9/23 5:36 AM:
>
> As to the requirement to have a home tax base in Germany: That indeed
> used to be mentioned (on their website), but was never actually needed.
> I could no longer find it mentioned on their website, but perhaps it's
> still there somewhere. (If someone finds it, please say exactly where.)
>
> Anyway, I registered in July 2003, so over 20 years ago, and from
> April 1, 2005, News.Individual.Net became a paid (instead of free)
> service. Worth every one of the 190 Euros! :-)
>

Thanks to all your and others for clarification on the variety of methods
used to pay for news.individual.net across a variety of locales.

@Frank
- After reading the replies, I visited their site
Apparently, no longer applicable based on your and other payment methods
in use
- the line item verbiage about tax base in Germany and method of
payment can be viewed in their registration info - Registration/Step1
https://news.individual.net/register/step1.php

"Due to changes in European tax law coming into force on 01.01.2015, we
can only offer our service to users which have their tax domicile in Germany.

How can I pay?
You can choose from the following payment options: The online payment
provider PayPal, as well as bank transfer to a German bank account of
Freie Universität Berlin with IBAN (International Bank Account Number)
and BIC (Bank Identifier Code, SWIFT address)."

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Carlos E. R. wrote:

[snip]

>
> But my question is on this paragraph:
>
>> Reputable ISPs will not accept emails from blacklisted IP addresses
>> such as are used by Vodafone within their CGNAT ranges.  I note that
>> Google does not check against blacklists.
>>
>> There's no easy solution until all ISPs use IPV6
>
> Why?

Not enough IPV4 addresses for every user to have a unique one.

Therefore CGNAT is used by many ISPs - especially those providing
wireless rather than copper or fibre services. Thus many users get to
share a single public IP address.

Some ISPs can't (or won't) police their users, so quite frequently a
user will send malware or s*p*a*m and the shared IP address gets
blacklisted.

Reputable email service providers therefore check where emails come from
and reject connections from blacklisted IPs. That way they don't get
accused of propagating malware or s*p*a*m.

By contrast, if I send malware or s*p*a*m from my unique public IP -
even if that IP changes from time to time - my ISP will see that and
block my connection.

--
Graham J

....w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> @Frank
> - After reading the replies, I visited their site
> Apparently, no longer applicable based on your and other payment methods
> in use
> - the line item verbiage about tax base in Germany and method of
> payment can be viewed in their registration info - Registration/Step1
> https://news.individual.net/register/step1.php
>
> "Due to changes in European tax law coming into force on 01.01.2015, we
> can only offer our service to users which have their tax domicile in Germany.

Ah, so it is still there and I apparently overlooked it. Thanks.

> How can I pay?
> You can choose from the following payment options: The online payment
> provider PayPal, as well as bank transfer to a German bank account of
> Freie Universität Berlin with IBAN (International Bank Account Number)
> and BIC (Bank Identifier Code, SWIFT address)."

On 11/10/2023 1:04 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 17:53, Paul wrote:
>>
>>
>> *unless I have a smart phone*.
>
> Liar. A smart phone is no different from a desktop or laptop when
> it comes to ordering things online. A smartphone is not necessary but
> for some it is convenience because they are on it 24/7. If you meant ordering by phone then any phone can do the job. No smartphone necessary.
>
> Why do you keep lying on these newsgroups. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? How old are you?.
>

A smartphone is a form of authentication, that is all.

I even talked to the commerce support (who have nothing to do
with the local stores), and they were insistent they needed authentication.

Paul

On 2023-11-10 19:42, Graham J wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> But my question is on this paragraph:
>>
>>> Reputable ISPs will not accept emails from blacklisted IP addresses
>>> such as are used by Vodafone within their CGNAT ranges.  I note that
>>> Google does not check against blacklists.
>>>
>>> There's no easy solution until all ISPs use IPV6
>>
>> Why?
>
> Not enough IPV4 addresses for every user to have a unique one.

Yep, I know that :-)

>
> Therefore CGNAT is used by many ISPs - especially those providing
> wireless rather than copper or fibre services.  Thus many users get to
> share a single public IP address.

Yes, I know what is CGNAT :-)

However, a machine on CGNAT can hardly send email by itself. I suspect
it would fail some test, like having a matching reverse DNS. :-?

They would normally use a relay outside and identify properly to them.
Say to Gmail.

> Some ISPs can't (or won't) police their users, so quite frequently a
> user will send malware or s*p*a*m and the shared IP address gets
> blacklisted.

Ah! Ok, this can happen.

> Reputable email service providers therefore check where emails come from
> and reject connections from blacklisted IPs.  That way they don't get
> accused of propagating malware or s*p*a*m.
>
> By contrast, if I send malware or s*p*a*m from my unique public IP -
> even if that IP changes from time to time - my ISP will see that and
> block my connection.

Or not.

The blacklist could be done on your IP alone, or, on the entire range,
and thus, have a similar situation to having CGNAT :-(

Fixed IPv6 would be an improvement.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-11-10 19:04, Jack wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 17:53, Paul wrote:
>>
>>
>> *unless I have a smart phone*.
>
> Liar. A smart phone is no different from a desktop or laptop when
> it comes to ordering things online. A smartphone is not necessary but
> for some it is convenience because they are on it 24/7. If you meant ordering by phone then any phone can do the job. No smartphone necessary.
>
> Why do you keep lying on these newsgroups. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? How old are you?.
>

Huh?

Telling Paul of all people, that he lies?

My bank requires people to have a smartphone, for remote identification
purposes. It is quite normal. And often, they also insist on us
installing and configuring the bank app on the phone.

Without it, I can not connect on my computer to the bank.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-11-10 20:11, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> @Frank
>> - After reading the replies, I visited their site
>> Apparently, no longer applicable based on your and other payment methods
>> in use
>> - the line item verbiage about tax base in Germany and method of
>> payment can be viewed in their registration info - Registration/Step1
>> https://news.individual.net/register/step1.php
>>
>> "Due to changes in European tax law coming into force on 01.01.2015, we
>> can only offer our service to users which have their tax domicile in Germany.
>
> Ah, so it is still there and I apparently overlooked it. Thanks.

Weird.

maybe I registered before that, and they haven't complained.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

....w¡ñ§±¤ñ wrote:

> "Due to changes in European tax law coming into force on 01.01.2015, we
> can only offer our service to users which have their tax domicile in
> Germany.

I guess that was when the EU VAT MOSS scheme was due to be introduced,
and people were waiting to see how it would work out for cross-border
supply of digital services?

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

> Telling Paul of all people, that he lies?

I agree with anyone who posits a sensible opinion, where I fully and
heartily agree with Carlos that Paul is one of the most reputable people on
this newsgroup - and one of the most helpful - and better yet - one who has
a _sensible_ assessment of the facts (usually cynically so, for good
reason).

Paul throws a bit of cynical humor when needed, which is maybe why that
person thought Paul was telling a lie about needing to use 2FA/MFA (some
day I'll figure out what the difference is as I use neither).

The only "authentication" I use is OAUth which Google forced us to use when
logging into a Google account using Thunderbird or the smartphone.

> My bank requires people to have a smartphone, for remote identification
> purposes. It is quite normal. And often, they also insist on us
> installing and configuring the bank app on the phone.
> Without it, I can not connect on my computer to the bank.

While I think the instant you put 2FA/MFA on your phone, or a bank app, the
phone immediately becomes radioactive in that you have to guard it from
others for the rest of your life - I do perfectly fine without ever having
set up 2FA or MFA on my phone thank you.

The instant you put anything financial on the Internet or on your phone,
the entire atmosphere needs to be treated forever as if it's radioactive.

Me?

I don't even have a PIN or any biometrics on any of my mobile devices.
Nor do I have a password on my PC.

Why would I need it?
I've said many times (figuratively so) that I don't live in the slums.

Whom am I afraid of?
My wife?
My kids?
My grandchildren?
My relatives?
My friends?
My neighbors?

Who?

I always wonder what kind of people put biometric gimmicks on their phone,
and I feel sorry for them because using biometrics means they live in the
slums (or that they fear the kind of person who grew up in the projects).

I'm far more likely to be attacked from the Internet than from my own home
(which is why I almost never buy software because not only does software
almost never need to be purchased if you're intelligent and knowledgeable,
but the instant you purchase something online - your privacy is toast).

This has been a personal opinion (otherwise known as a factual assessment).

No animals were hurt in expressing these well-thought-out reasoned
assessments of facts (even as most people are like sheep led to slaughter).
--
The whole point of Usenet is to find people who know more than you do.
And to contribute to the overall tribal knowledge value of the newsgroup.
It's a domino effect where each of us helps the next person in the lineup.

Carlos E. R. wrote:

[snip]

> However, a machine on CGNAT can hardly send email by itself. I suspect
> it would fail some test, like having a matching reverse DNS. :-?

Such emails usually get rejected by the mail client at the recipient
user, or the virus checking at the recipient user's mail server.

> They would normally use a relay outside and identify properly to them.
> Say to Gmail.

Gmail are known not to check the originating IP address. That's why it
is a good policy to block all emails from gmail addresses except for
those from known and trusted senders.

[snip]

> The blacklist could be done on your IP alone, or, on the entire range,
> and thus, have a similar situation to having CGNAT :-(

In my experience blacklists are applied to single IP addresses, not
entire ranges - except possibly where the ranges is known to be a
Russian spambot for example.

--
Graham J

On 2023-11-10 22:56, Graham J wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> However, a machine on CGNAT can hardly send email by itself. I suspect
>> it would fail some test, like having a matching reverse DNS. :-?
>
> Such emails usually get rejected by the mail client at the recipient
> user, or the virus checking at the recipient user's mail server.
>
>> They would normally use a relay outside and identify properly to them.
>> Say to Gmail.
>
> Gmail are known not to check the originating IP address.  That's why it
> is a good policy to block all emails from gmail addresses except for
> those from known and trusted senders.

No, we can't do that. Many of our correspondents are on gmail.

I hardly get any spam on email.

>
> [snip]
>
>> The blacklist could be done on your IP alone, or, on the entire range,
>> and thus, have a similar situation to having CGNAT :-(
>
> In my experience blacklists are applied to single IP addresses, not
> entire ranges - except possibly where the ranges is known to be a
> Russian spambot for example.
>
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:01:28 -0000 (UTC), in
> <uiff8o$1gm6m$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Actually it's the fire hydrants. How are we supposed to know what a US fire
>> hydrant looks like?
>
> Dare I suggest you ask Google?

Or, you know, google not assume the US is the centre of the universe.
Self-driving cars also need to learn what bridges, traffic lights and zebra
crossings look like in the other cities too. Google would do well to
regionalise its captcha.

Frank Slootweg wrote on 11/10/23 12:11 PM:
> ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> @Frank
>> - After reading the replies, I visited their site
>> Apparently, no longer applicable based on your and other payment methods
>> in use
>> - the line item verbiage about tax base in Germany and method of
>> payment can be viewed in their registration info - Registration/Step1
>> https://news.individual.net/register/step1.php
>>
>> "Due to changes in European tax law coming into force on 01.01.2015, we
>> can only offer our service to users which have their tax domicile in Germany.
>
> Ah, so it is still there and I apparently overlooked it. Thanks.
>

Yes, took an extra step to find it.
The info is not on the initial Registration page, only when accessing the
Registration link, then clicking on 'Go Sign up for News.Individual.NET!'

cf. https://news.individual.net/register.php
The Registration page(above link) only indicates how to make a payment
for reactivating an existing account.
"If you already have an account for News.Individual.NET, please go
straight to "My Account", log in, and reactivate your account by paying
10 EUR for one year of usage"
- i.e. just the cost, not how to pay.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 11/10/23 04:16, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> Arlen, you are a paranoid.

Dude. Paranoids have enemies too. They
just find them quicker than regular folks.

Please do not go picking fights on this group.

Carlos,

> In the EU, even knowing the bank account data of someone doesn't allow
> anyone to extract money from it.

Yeah, you need to have proof that you are a company to be able to do that.
And registering yourself as a company is quite hard here, you only have to
pay a nominal fee and you're one (been there, done that).

.... which is exactly what happened a number of years ago. People who
noticed unknown companies dipping into their accounts, and had to act
themselves to get that money back.

As for a smartphone for authentication ? I always found that odd. You have
exactly *zero* control over what is going on on it, and if you make sure you
can (rooting it) you are flagged as "insecure".

Besides that, its a *non-secure* chain, in the sense that pretty-much any
helpdesk employee can transfer your phone number to another physical phone
(social engeneering).

As for using a smartphone to order *and* do MFA ? Thats like having your
(four-digit?) bank code writen on the card itself. IMHO thats just /asking/
for it...

Yes, I do think most people with smartphones are stupid. Besides the
"smartphone zombie" problem (darwin award contestants) I mean. Most all of
them have no clue what that mobile 'puter runs/is doing and/or playing the
"that won't ever happen to me" gamble, but all praise it into high heavens.
While installing all kinds of malware-free - because of "walled garden" -
apps on it. Yeah, right.

When I was younger I was taught that running random executables on a 'puter
was taking a risk of getting malware. Nowerdays you're regarded a weirdo if
you do *not* allow random executables (ranging from apps thru active-content
documents thru JS on browsers) on it. Go figure.

As an old saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they
aren't after you."

Although full-blown paranoids see danger /everywhere/, I have been called
called paranoid for pointing the above out.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

> As an old saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they
> aren't after you."
>
> Although full-blown paranoids see danger /everywhere/, I have been called
> called paranoid for pointing the above out.

To your point, Rudy Weiser, Carlos didn't define "where" the paranoia lies.
And, more importantly when talking about faraday hats, is the threat mode.

What's the threat?
a. Is your biggest threat your own wife and children at home?
b. Or is your biggest threat some ransom hacker on the Internet?

My argument, sensible as it is, is that logically your friends aren't the
big threat - so why do people spend so much energy "securing" their phone?

It seems to me illogical for a person to use biometrics to secure their
phone (as if they live in the slums and are afraid of every passer by), and
yet they don't use anti-ad anti-fingerprint anti-identification on the net.

For example, I don't have any PIN or password or biometric gimmicks on any
of my phones or computers, which would make it seem that I'm not paranoid.

And yet, I have my browsers set up one for each tasks, so that
fingerprinting is less easily done, and I modify my thousands of posted
images, again - to lessen automatic fingerprinting robotic culling, and I
use Herbert Kleebauer's excellent timezone-changing script to randomize my
system timezone, and, of course, I have over six thousand VPN servers, etc.

Of course, all of that is easily done if you're intelligent with computers,
as you certainly are, and as Carlos should be able to do - so it's not an
effort other than a passion to use computers efficiently for what they do.

However, intelligence aside, the fact that simple anti-identification
privacy is habitually employed would make it seem to people like Carlos
that I'm paranoid, right? But then I don't even secure my phone or PC...

So which is it? Am I paranoid? Or am I simply logically sensible in
assessing what the threat is - instead of letting MARKETING decide that I
need "their fancy biometrics" to secure my radioactive phone.

Why is my phone radioactive in the first place Rudy?
a. If I don't put banking apps on it, it's not radioactive
b. If I don't put a credit card on it, it's not radioactive
c. If I don't use it to secure all my accounts, it's not radioactive

Do you get the point?
Whether or not your device is radioactive - is up to you.

Carlos' phone is clearly extremely radioactive as he said he does his
banking on his phone and he says he purchases things from his phone.

That's fine.
Most people do that.

But I don't.
Do you know why?

Because if you're intelligent, you don't _need_ to make your phone or your
PC radioactive... but you have to be intelligent about it.

Logical too.
Sensible also.

To that end, it's my point of view that the instant you add sensitive stuff
to a device (which MARKETING wants you do do, by the way), then the device
instantly becomes radioactive - which means you have to protect it forever.

For example, I don't buy anything using my phone - nothing. Zero. Nada.
Why would I ever need to buy anything from a phone anyway?

I do buy things using my PC - but then I use VPN and a specific web browser
which is already hardened against fingerprinting and geolocation attacks.

Luckily I don't need to ever buy apps on the phone or PC.

All the apps you could ever want are free as far as my experience has been.
(Of course, you need to be intelligent to find those best free FOSS apps.)

Which brings me to the main point of paranoia that Carlos kindly unearthed.
a. A logically sensible adult _assesses_ the threat;
b. And an intelligent adult reacts to _that_ threat;
c. In doing so, an adult sets up the device to mitigate that threat.

So what's the main threat?
A. Someone snatching your radioactive device out of your hands, or,
B. Someone on the Internet trying to take away your privacy?

Intelligent people would guard against the threat that seems most sensible.
Right?

The only other choice is to be like a mindless sheep led to slaughter.]
Pick one.
--
Sometimes on Usenet it's useful to discuss varying philosophical views.

On 2023-11-11 07:28, T wrote:
> On 11/10/23 04:16, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Arlen, you are a paranoid.
>
> Dude.  Paranoids have enemies too.  They
> just find them quicker than regular folks.
>
> Please do not go picking fights on this group.

He started...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Wally",

>> As an old saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they
>> aren't after you."
>>
>> Although full-blown paranoids see danger /everywhere/, I have been called
>> called paranoid for pointing the above out.
>
> To your point, Rudy Weiser, Carlos didn't define "where" the paranoia
> lies.

And neither did I.

If you think otherwise than feel free to quote where I did. But just like
(most) always, you claim stuf but "forget" to support it.

Funny though, I didn't mention you (or anyone else) directly or indirectly,
but you /stil/ think you should try to provoke me - oh goodie, you also
wrote my name wrong. That must mean I must go into a raging rant, right ?
Alas, no. :-p

bye Arlen.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.

> Intelligent people would guard against the threat that seems most
> sensible.

People with just a bit of knowledge of the English langage would know that
the use of "sensible" is ... incorrect there. Who ever has encountered a
sensible threat ? Replace it with "likely" and you get a sentence that
actually makes some sense.

Than again, not many would stop with "the threat that seems most likely", as
locking the front door but forgetting the, now literal, backdoor doesn't
quite help, now does it ? :-)

Kid, you *really* need to learn to think about/thru the implications of what
you say.

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

>> To your point, Rudy Weiser, Carlos didn't define "where" the paranoia
>> lies.
>
> And neither did I.

Hence why we agree.