Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cybersquatting and Social Media

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-or-a-reasonable-facsimile-thereof dept.

Privacy 73

Earthquake Retrofit writes "Brian Krebs has a story about cybersquatting on social networking sites. He cites cases of people being impersonated and reports: 'A site called knowem.com allows you to see whether your name or whatever nickname you favor is already registered at any of some 120 social networking sites on the Web today. For a $64.95 fee, the site will register all available accounts on your behalf, a manual process that it says takes one to five business days. Whether anyone could possibly use and maintain 120 different social networking accounts is beyond my imagination. I would think an automated signup service like knowem.com would be far more useful if there was also a service that people could use to simultaneously update all of these sites with the same or slightly different content.' Is it time to saddle up for a new round of Internet land grabs?" A Schneier blog post earlier this month pointed out a related story about how not establishing yourself on social sites, combined with the frequent lack of validation for friend requests, can provide identity thieves with a tempting target .

cancel ×

73 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lol (2, Funny)

landaishan (1537821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720661)

just what ive always wanted, to be on myspace, facebook, twitter, bebo, all at once, 120 times

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27720733)

Facebook isn't even on the list -- they've been dissed.

Re:lol (5, Insightful)

johny42 (1087173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720797)

The fact that some people need/want to be registered on 120 social networking sites at once means that something's horribly wrong here.

There should be a single social network that is flexible and open enough so that there's no need for any other one. In fact, there already is such a network. It is called the Internet.

We just need to utilize it the right way. Distributed social networking is the future, not a service that tries (and very probably fails) to manage your identity on 120 different centralized social networking services.

Re:lol (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720865)

The fact that some people need/want to be registered on 120 social networking sites at once means that something's horribly wrong here.

I may only want one, but I might have friends scattered across, say, five of these. And I wouldn't want anyone to impersonate me on the 115 remaining sites.

There should be a single social network that is flexible and open enough so that there's no need for any other one. In fact, there already is such a network. It is called the Internet.

You don't want to be identified as yourself across the whole Internet. Trust me.

Re:lol (3, Insightful)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721147)

... but I might have friends scattered across, say, five of these.

This whole social networking thing is stupid. It's got to the point where it's not 'Who you know' but 'who you know depends on what site you use!' Real, proper friends are people you actually meet and talk to, go out with, enjoy life with. Even distant friends can be phoned/skyped/emailed. Social networking is just a pointless way of giving people you don't know too much information about you. If you want a proper cyber-presence get a Homesite...it's cheap and easy enough, and far more secure as you have full control and there are no 'terms and conditions'.

Re:lol (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721263)

Social networking is just a pointless way of giving people you don't know too much information about you.

Exactly. For example, I know for a fact that iwiw.hu (the largest such site in Hungary, with over 2M members in a 10M country) is used extensively by the National Security Office. They actually have a "shadow" version of it, where they connect your relevant contacts to you by hand. Of course, this being "national security", it does not officially exist, and there is absolutely no outside control over it. Pretty fucking scary.

I wouldn't be surprised for something like this to exist in other countries.

Re:lol (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#27728273)

Exactly. For example, I know for a fact that iwiw.hu (the largest such site in Hungary, with over 2M members in a 10M country) is used extensively by the National Security Office. They actually have a "shadow" version of it, where they connect your relevant contacts to you by hand. Of course, this being "national security", it does not officially exist, and there is absolutely no outside control over it. Pretty fucking scary.

I wouldn't be surprised for something like this to exist in other countries.

Maybe someone should tell them they're no longer part of the Eastern bloc now and there's no need to keep tabs on everybody any more.

But then every country snoops on its people in its own way (see the NSA fiasco), old habits die hard and it's so difficult to resist the shiny new toys...

At least the Hungarians found a new way. Does Brazil use a mirror of the Google thing then (can't remember what it's called now, haven't been on it for ages) ?

Re:lol (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721885)

The key is to prevent things that could be used to identify you from getting out in the first place.

Your name is the basic piece of information someone interested in you will have. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousands of people with the same name, so they need more. A photo. Date of birth. Address. Anything that separates you from your namesakes.

Unfortunately most social networking sites ask for this info, and worse still even if you don't put a photo of yourself up other people can tag you on their photos. That is the worst aspect of Facebook, the thing that pushed me over the edge and made me delete my account.

I came to the conclusion that, in the end, the best thing to do is put out misinformation. It makes it harder for people to find information on you, and even if they do a lot of it will be contradictory. It helps prevent people from googling you successfully, especially if you have a common name. My name, for example, is shared by some religious nutter who is a member of various hard line Islamic groups, so I created lots of random profiles on different sites with the same name, and now if you google it you get more than just me and him on the first page. An image search will pull up lots of random photos I stole from other random people's profiles.

Re: Misinformation (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722035)

MisInfo is a really slippery game though, because if you yourself posted fake info everywhere, then some spammer making up fake info hides in *your* misinfo.

Re:lol (1)

Slashdot Suxxors (1207082) | more than 5 years ago | (#27723065)

Misinformation? You're going to Facebook for the wrong reasons if you're trying to be anonymous.

It's a society (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720929)

The fact that some people need/want to be registered on 120 social networking sites at once means that something's horribly wrong here.

It's a society of media.

Re:It's a society (2, Insightful)

ssintercept (843305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721101)

The fact that some people need/want to be registered on 120 social networking sites at once means that something's horribly wrong here.

It's a society of media.

It's a society of attention whores.

Re:lol (1)

Rick Bentley (988595) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721381)

I thought Facebook was the Internet...

There should be a single social network that is flexible and open enough so that there's no need for any other one. In fact, there already is such a network. It is called the Internet.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27722865)

The Friend of a Friend project (www.foaf-project.org) which is actually down right now but basically it's a form of social networking over RDF (a W3C recommendation)

Re:lol (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726591)

I wish these sites could all merge to form a network and provide an API so that I could host my own profile and pages but still access and share content across from users of facebook, myspace. You could have just one social profile instead of being registered to multiple sites.

That would be sort of a holy grail solution but I can't see it happening any time soon.

Re:lol (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27732165)

This is also a problem with forums. There used to be one forum system, and it wasn't broke. It was called Usenet. Now however, there are zillions of them and many are redundant yet disconnected with each other. You need zillions of logins to work with them all. It's now horribly fragmented.

Stake your claim (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720665)

Whether you use the sites or not, it requires very little effort to grab your name early, in case you change your mind. Use a service, or something like PasswordGorilla to help manage the accounts. If you run a business with a recognizable brand it's pretty much a requirement to at least register your name.

Re:Stake your claim (1, Interesting)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720735)

You could also ignore all this social nonsense which is really meant for kids and those folks who don't know what right-click means.

Re:Stake your claim (2, Interesting)

dyefade (735994) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720753)

How does that help prevent people impersonating you?

Re:Stake your claim (2, Insightful)

CheddarHead (811916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720893)

Most of the scams seem to rely on you having an account on at least one of the social networking sites. They use the info from that site to impersonate you on another site. If you didn't use any of the sites then it would be much harder for them to get the info needed to impersonate you convincingly. They might still be able to convince strangers, but people who really know you, and thus trust you, wouldn't be fooled.

Also, if you totally ignore these sites (like I do) then it would be doubly hard to convince any of your friends and family. Anyone who knows me would probably laugh if they got a friends invite supposedly coming from me on Facebook or some other social site. They would either assume it was a joke or a scam, or they'd call my wife to ask if I was feeling OK.

So, I agree with FreakyGreenLeaky that ignoring these sites solves this problem for the most part. Knowem.com is solution to a problem that doesn't really exist for many if not most of us.

Re:Stake your claim (2, Funny)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722477)

One of the sites is slashdot.

Re:Stake your claim (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722163)

That's what libel laws are for. I think fear of being impersonated is exaggerated and silly.

Re:Stake your claim (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720757)

Many businesses currently use FaceBook and Twitter, and I would imagine the numbers will only increase. What it's 'meant' for often has little to do with how it will be used.

Even if businesses just watch for opinions and complaints, it's probably something worth their time.

Re:Stake your claim (1)

dmooresatx (940247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721391)

You are absolutely right, and business will always find a way to use whatever communication channels are available to get their message out. It has become quite a task. I agree with the comment on the service Knowem.com that, in addition to registering your name on 120 accounts, it ought to offer a way to update all of these sites from a single repository of your information. Onward Internet! Onward innovators! What a ride!

Re:Stake your claim (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722181)

You're right of course. I was referring to the folks who're frightened of being impersonated, and who must therefore sign up at every social thingy to prevent it.

Re:Stake your claim (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726611)

They could just register firstnamelastname.com and put a page with intro and legit contacts.

Scary (2, Interesting)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720671)

The mere fact that social networking sites have become so integrated into our society that you can become the target of identity theft terrifies me. There seems just something fundamentally wrong about it.

Re:Scary (2, Interesting)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720761)

Citation please. How has social networking sites become "so integrated into our society?" Society at large really couldn't give a shit about social networking sites. They're too busy getting on with life (and having one).

Sites such as facebook are just another in a long line of silly fads. It will pass, just like geocities.

Re:Scary (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720803)

It will pass, just like geocities.

Don't suppose we could get an estimated date on that one?

Re:Scary (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721545)

I think there business model is doomed (like youtube, which is losing millions). Like so many dot-coms, they're betting on some vague future mechanism to start generating revenue (sure, they've started ads, but will it be enough to break even and support them - as opposed to being supported by VC who eventually want ROI). Sooner or later, the emperor will notice he's butt-nekkid.

Re:Business Models vs. Phenomenon (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722171)

The exact tableau of services will morph, to be sure, but the theme of Net Sharing is here to stay. Youtube is not really a revenue generator - it's a pre-emptive purchase "so no one else has it".

What we are seeing is that an Industry Leader is proving tricky to unseat. There are say five big players per category, and then an ecosphere of niche adjuncts.

We know of for example:
"HomeBase Sites" : MySpace, FaceBook, (choice of 2);
MicroBlogging: Twitter, (your choice of 2)
Messengers: AIM, Yahoo, MSN,(your choice of 2)
PG Video: YouTube, Google Video, (your choice of 2)

I think it's less about direct revenue sometimes than maintaining visibility footholds.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27720849)

Sites such as facebook are just another in a long line of silly fads. It will pass, just like geocities.

Obviously the concept is not a fad, the popularity of sites just changes over time. What are you 50?

Society at large really couldn't give a shit about social networking sites. They're too busy getting on with life (and having one).

Does posting on Slashdot count as having a life these days? BTW I don't use them but here's a citation [mns.co.uk]

Apparently in March Myspace had over 85 million unique US visitors.

Re:Scary (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721479)

Apparently in March Myspace had over 85 million unique US visitors

Yes, and I bet they're just growing by leaps and bounds, hey? Facebook will also eventually (already?) reach a plateau, then decline. It's the way of the 'net, get over it, sonny ;) What was once new and shiny and in quickly becomes stale.

Re:Scary (0, Troll)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720963)

"Citation please. How has social networking sites become "so integrated into our society?"

Well, for one, I seem to recall a completely inexperienced and unqualified presidential candidate winning the most powerful job in the universe based partly on the fact that he was *cool* enough to use Twitter. Here's one of 4,790,000 citations on that available via Google: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/13/barack-obama-overtakes-kevin-rose-on-twitter-mccain-is-nowhere-in-sight/ [techcrunch.com] .

Re:Scary (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721091)

It wouldn't be *cool* if everyone was doing it. And I doubt that more than a very small fraction of voters was influenced by it.

Re:Scary (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721441)

ahh, ok. He won the presidency because he used a blackberry and twitter. Silly me.

Re:Scary (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 5 years ago | (#27730161)

The mods are on crack today. True, Obama won for many reasons, not the smallest of those was the public disenchantment with the republicans for the tragedy known as the Bush administration.

  But it was his presence in the web had a HUGE boost in his popularity, it made people feel he was modern and smart, it also made him look reachable and down to Earth.

Re: "Society" (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722113)

People under 50, making more than $20,000 a year, with low-moderate minimum computer experience, *are* "society at large".

They're getting into social media. Haltingly, tentatively, but surely.

This is not "Revenge of the Nerds" between the Nerds & Betas anymore.

No citation today, because I agree it's a non-random usergroup, but the outliers are now under 50%, I am confident. It will be even more pronounced in the next five years.

Re:Scary (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721113)

It scares you because you think of it as identity theft. If you think of it as banks and other institutions falsely issuing credit in your name (based on fraudulent information that they failed to sufficiently verify), it will just piss you off.

As far as using the social networking sights to get friends and relatives to send money, what fraction of people are actually that credulous? My immediate family wouldn't send me money based only on a Facebook message, let alone friends and acquaintances.

Re:Scary (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721345)

Not theft. Infringement.

Re:Scary (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726271)

It's not identity theft as you usually think of it. That's when somebody gathers enough data to fraudulently impersonate you to government and financial institutions that screw up on authentication (which, unfortunately, is a lot of them). That has serious consequences, that usually don't fall on the idiots who make it possible.

This is a case of somebody gathering enough details to put up a Facebook account (say) in the name of one of your friends, and providing enough details to convince you it's the real friend. At that point, the impostor can start doing things that a Facebook friend could do. This probably isn't that hard to do, considering how easily some people accept Facebook friends, as if they were going to paste them in a book and turn them in for valuable prizes.

Which means that the impostors can gather all the information you put out on Facebook for the world to see, and they can send you messages that appear to come from friends.

The solution here is fairly simple. Never put anything on a social networking site that you don't want the entire world to see. Never absolutely trust a message on a social networking site to come from the person it is alleged to. Set up a little alarm in the back of your mind that goes off whenever somebody unexpectedly asks for money, or any sort of financial or private information.

This is nothing new. People have been playing confidence games and scams pretty much forever. The only difference on Facebook is that it's easier to impersonate somebody, which makes some scams easier.

multi-update (3, Interesting)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720721)

I would think an automated signup service like knowem.com would be far more useful if there was also a service that people could use to simultaneously update all of these sites with the same or slightly different content.

Um...Ping.fm [www.ping.fm]

Wouldn't it be more secure to ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27720727)

completely avoid social networking sites, rather than playing "whack a mole" by trying to sign up to them all?

I've got a single home page on my own server, which contains minimal personal information. All of my other "home" pages are simply a link back to this page. I don't use social networking sites, as the social network itself is personal information.

For years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27720749)

People have been wrongly using my name for years.

Signed:
Anonymous Coward.

thank god this is tagged "shitnobodycaresabout" (0, Offtopic)

KMnO4 (684253) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720823)

because I don't

Just Curious (1)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720853)

checked out some names:

spiff 74 times

snake 75 times

My /. name 24 times

4nic8 a mesially 13 times.

Updating Simultaneously (1)

freekymayne (1154953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720859)

In the list of sites on knowem, there is indeed a site that allows users to simultaneously update their status across social networking sites... http://hellotxt.com/ [hellotxt.com]

Ever here of ping.fm? (1)

shanmoon (636258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720861)

Let's you update multiple social networking and bookmarking sites all at once or based on groupings (i.e. business / social ). Of course it doesn't support 120 sites, but I think the count is up to around 40 now...

Hey! (4, Insightful)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720905)

Someone is impresonating me on Facebook! I demand action!
Sincerely,
John Smith

Banned From Digg via Knowem (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27720977)

A word of caution: I used this service and Digg banned my account for "multiple accounts" since my account was created at the Knowem place along with other Knowem users' accounts.

All I wanted was one Digg account under my brand's trademark name and now that name is stuck with a disabled account.

Wait, what... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27723891)

What, you wanted a Digg account named "Anonymous Coward"?

Re:Banned From Digg via Knowem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724071)

Update: I contacted Knowem by email and ended up speaking with Knowem's co-founder on the phone. He is currently working on working something out with Digg and is trying to get my account restored. He also said that he'd also give me one free month of the subscription service for my inconvenience.

I have never received such a personal response from a website before - it was very pleasant.

Frist ps0t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721223)

consider worthwhile Collect any spilled Official GNAA irc be 'very poorly Leaving the play community. The your spare time are inherently Butts are exposed hobby. It was aal 200 running NT as to which *BSD Have an IRC client shit-filled, Those uber-asshole partner. And if Faster chip every chance I got everyday...Redefine committerbase and United States of SHARE, THIS NEWS FreeBSD went out way. It used to be You join today! and shouting that

obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721275)

Parents start to give a nickname when the child is born. The nickname must be country unique and atomic.
The nickname is then registered on civil registration forms.

Then MrX registred on myspace that lives in France is clearly not the MrX from China.

Re:obvious solution (1)

KeX3 (963046) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721355)

Can't we just create a uuid at birth?
"[..] can reasonably be considered unique among all UUIDs created [...]"

Problem solved. Btw, i'm "534d16af-0e7f-4847-bd96-0b64d73fd8f3", pleased to make your acquaintance.

Re:obvious solution (2, Interesting)

thogard (43403) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722071)

So are you going to trademark your kid?

Making it easier for the impostors (2, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721617)

Yay! Now in order to impersonate someone, you only need to break into one single account and immediately have access to his 120 social networking services. The wonders of progress!

usernamecheck.com checks for free (1)

quiddity (106640) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721649)

http://www.usernamecheck.com/ [usernamecheck.com] will check whether a username is taken at dozens of sites for you, for free. signing up for the few relevant ones really isn't that difficult, certainly not worth $65.

Re:usernamecheck.com checks for free (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726637)

My ex uses a rather unique username, I just found her profile on sites I didn't know existed. Thanks.

Easy solution (1)

gsakkis (1279052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721731)

Link to your legitimate profiles from your single personal home page/site and put a fat disclaimer there stating that any other profile with your name and/or information not explicitly mentioned is not yours. Assuming search engines do their job right and rank your home page before any skanky impersonator, problem is pretty much solved.

Re: Leverage off a Homepage (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722211)

Great post sir.

I have chosen the "avoid them all" method as well, but I like your theme. Not counting stray hacks, the control provided by your own webpage feels like a tie-breaker vs. trolls.

Who would be stupid enough ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721917)

... to base identification on resources that are so easily manipulated?

I mean, it would be as moronic as my bank issuing a line of credit in my name to anyone who walked in off the street knowing my SSN and birthdate. Even the abuse of social networks to discredit or defame an individual tells more about the shortcomings of the suckers that fall for it. Using the old-fashioned 'networks' like gossip around the water cooler predates Al Gore inventing the Internet. And people that are so socially inept to recognize such manipulation aren't the sorts I'd want to deal with in either a business or social setting.

Waste of time and money (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722045)

So what if there are N social networking sites ? N-5 will fail within a year or two. If you must buy into the social-media hype, pick one or two big ones and stick with them. There's little point in having profiles on obscure sites if you're not going to be an active member, right ?

Yippe Ty-yi-yay! (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722321)

Is it time to saddle up for a new round of Internet land grabs?

Here we go again! Where it stops nobody knows... and few people seem to care.

"I don't use any of these sites!" (2, Interesting)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722491)

Well "I don't use any of these sites!" you said.

For those of you who didn't go to the website, one of them is Slashdot.

Re:"I don't use any of these sites!" (2, Funny)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726685)

/. isn't a social networking site. It's a peer spellchecker for people with too much free tyme.

Re:"I don't use any of these sites!" (1)

pitje (1083069) | more than 5 years ago | (#27727413)

obligatory: time

Re:"I don't use any of these sites!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27732695)

It's a peer spellchecker for people with too much free tyme.

duh:
Its a pier spell-checker fer ppl with to much free tyme.

Social Networking Sucks (1)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27722497)

It's one of the most disappointing phenomena of the Internet. With all the Internet's potential, all people care about it turns out is looking at pictures of themselves and sending OMG messages.

On the Marine's creed: (1)

JoCat (1291368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27723031)

This is my PGP key.
There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My key is my best friend.
It is my who I am.
I must remember it as I remember my life.
My key, without me, is useless.
Without my key, I am anonymous.
I must post my message signed.
I must post better than any enemy who is trying to impersonate me.
I must reg him before he regs me. I will....

Before CmdrTaco I swear this creed.
My key and myself are the defenders of my IP.
We are the masters of our enemy.
We are the saviors of my Second Life.
So be it, until victory is /.'s and there is no enemy, but Peace.

http://www.omgitswebsite.com/JosephCatrambone.asc [omgitswebsite.com]

I can't tell the social networking from the spam (1)

crazybilly (947714) | more than 5 years ago | (#27726729)

I got a direct message on twitter from a flesh-and-blood friend of mine who's trying to build his own professional coaching business asking about my audience when I twitter.

I resisted the temptation to lambaste him for suggesting that I would consider my twitter friends an audience and rambled off something about 'friends and family, real and internet.'

He was disappointed to learn that none of my friends were interested in his spamesque, coaching, pointy-hairisms.

I didn't tell him it was b/c we tend to recognize spam when we see it.

He is my friend in real life, after all.

This is sad... (1)

tekshogun (1110191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27728527)

I think it is kind of bad that someone would be so paranoid of their names and aliases being used by others (some just by coincidence, others by intent) that they would give a site the power to register them on a whole bunch of sites, many of which you may not want anything to do with. Many of them are useless. That is why MySpace and Facebook are dominant, because they stamped out or are in the process of stamping out other sites. Social networking is a difficult area to maintain a high stature in. Anyway, one big issue with this is that one site, knowem.com, will know as much (if not more) about you than yourself and there is a single source that could be hacked by malicious operators or subpoenaed by law enforcement. There goes your privacy....

One more step into the ether (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27728605)

Even ESPN is putting up stories about someone Twittering this or that. SI has a facebook page they tout every day. Now we are worried someone might want to 'impersonate' you on MySuperNetworkSite.com? Unless you are famous or have a stalker (not mutually exclusive), who the heck is going to try and impersonate you?

I got a private facebook account only because a bunch or former high school and college friends emailed me about it. It's useful since they change jobs and phone numbers occasionally.

I've seen teenagers texting each other while sitting NEXT to each other. Next we shall Twit while next to each other. I'm being out-nerded by teenagers, who have no concept of being a nerd. Web3.0 will be having conversations in person, face to face, except we will be wearing a helmet that has a flatscreen display in front and a mic for speech to text conversion. Wonder if I can patent that.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>