You Have to Try This on Google

"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:437ebedc$1_2 (AT) news (DOT) tm.net.my...
snip



Google is larger then Google.com you know.

snip



But underestimating things is what bring about unforeseen problems. You
choose to ignore and you know what, that's fine by me! ;-)

snip


No... you try to simplify and minimize what I'm saying... you're
obviously
in love with your favorite crawler (google that is).


You obviously don't know who you are talking to. If you had done some
research you would have found out that John is a known terrorist. He is
suppose to be working undercover sort of speak and making computer
programs
and such for terrorism. :-) Sorry John, couldn't help myself! :-)

Stacey

eh... being new I don't really know anyone here, excuse me if my quick drawn
conclusions are wrong... in due time I will learn.

That being said... ...John, I'dd like to read a reply here, waddup bro?

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9712EBB43A002castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

There are ways to mask an IP.

Just as a side note: yes, you can mask an IP for some people, not for
all. And there are other ways to track someone down. In the past I
explained how simple people can be tracked down on Usenet. As long as
people post, and are not carefull, they can be tracked down. Most
people leave traces everywhere. Someone who wants to find them, will.

Shoot the phone book has been out for years, also you can gain info
about anyone by having it looked it up with some agencies.

Yup, Social engineering beats most other things.

You have a choice there...

Can you explain what choice I have if someone using social engineering
with, for example my bank, obtains information regarding my bank account?

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message

:

That's not an issue, Google is clear about this automatic scanning.
No humans involved.

Yet!

Hhmmm... for some reason I'm thinking DMOZ here.

Can you explain how DMOZ is related with automatic scanning of Gmail to
add ads to mail?

Google is larger then Google.com you know.

Yes, maybe better then most readers here :-)

:

So what else is new?

My site ;-)

But underestimating things is what bring about unforeseen problems.
You choose to ignore and you know what, that's fine by me! ;-)

Good, since how are *you* going to stop Google and those agencies?

Yup, and today, you have to go to the town and ask the neighbours. If
someone wants the info, he/she gets it.

No... you try to simplify and minimize what I'm saying... you're
obviously in love with your favorite crawler (google that is).

*sigh* the old zealot mantra again: if you're not against them, you must
be with them

Go back a handfull of years... having satellite pictures would brand
you a spy... people died over such matters!

Really? Funny, in the Netherlands one could buy a picture of ones town
taken from the air. And I didn't see empty spots in those pictures.

The neighbour thing... See I do not understand why you mention this, I
agree that if you really want something you can get it.

Excellent, we are getting there.

But (before
technology allowed) for most of us this would take resources... common
people do not have these...

And hence they go to a crowded place and blow themselves to little
pieces. You only have to find a crowded place. A big city often works
well.

they don't just jump over the border to
find a suitable target or go out to look in someone backyard.

Yup, so they go to a city and booom!

It's about putting thing in perspective... not so long ago you would
be in trouble if you were able to collect and store the information
you're able to find today... add another couple of years... could
everyone be tapping into live satelitte feeds? Phone taps? The
ability to have a peek through each and every camera that can be foun
on the streets worldwide?

<http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2005/01/09/security-webcam-hunting.html>

getting paranoid already?

Where does it stop for you? Surely there must be a line somewhere
they should never cross?

I don't worry about it :-) If it bothers me, it bothers other people.
And either all those people can make a change, or not. Probably not.

Thinking it is only *now* possible, thanks to Google, that's naive.

Allright... so tell me then, before the internet and the searchengine
era in general... what would have been your options to (for the
argument) find out more about me?

Using social engineering. Asking around.

And why would you want to?

For the sake of the example you just gave?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress here, I make use of what
is available myself! But that doesn't mean I have to 'surrender' my
info and/or privacy just to gain that extra visit does it?

How about the privacy of that visitor? I mean, you log what he/she does
now don't you?

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

That being said... ...John, I'dd like to read a reply here, waddup
bro?

Yup, it's true. No point in denying it :-D.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Exactly. If someone crashed a plane into skyscrapers and also had a
GMail account, do you really think that the FBI would avoid
penetrating datacen- tres in order to identify accomplices?

They probably already *have* the data. I mean, I see no https connection
when I connect to Gmail.

Surfaces are not truly flat and also the resolution is coarse as
data comes from satellites. Will Google deploy some surveillence
cameras too? It is, after all, a "cool idea". Find your favourite
spot in Google Maps/Earth; then, have a look at some live cameras
in the area. If that does not worry you, I don't know what would.

Why would it worry me? Someone with a tiny camera in his clothes can do
the same, and probably more (follow me in buildings, etc.).

With perverts and stalkers out there, that's the last thing humanity
needs.

Ah, yeah, perverts and stalkers are sitting behind the computer drooling
at a streetcam.

Or are they *out* on the street? If you worry about Google, worry about
how small cameras are at the moment...

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

John Bokma wrote:

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Surfaces are not truly flat and also the resolution is coarse as
data comes from satellites. Will Google deploy some surveillence
cameras too? It is, after all, a "cool idea". Find your favourite
spot in Google Maps/Earth; then, have a look at some live cameras
in the area. If that does not worry you, I don't know what would.

Why would it worry me? Someone with a tiny camera in his clothes can do
the same, and probably more (follow me in buildings, etc.).

But then they'd be seen by you too. I personally wouldn't like it if
there'd be a security cam watching the door of my house connected to
the internet. Especially since my address is public, so it would
enable anyone to just watch my front door 24/7, find out exactly when
I'm home and when not, who visits me when and for how long, how long
my kids are outside by themselves, how long my bicycle is outside and
when I take out the trash... plenty of things I'd prefer to be seen
only by people I can see too.

OTOH, a neighbour across the street can do the same, but that person
risks being seen by others who know him/her when s/he decides to
burglar my house or steal my bike.

With perverts and stalkers out there, that's the last thing humanity
needs.

Ah, yeah, perverts and stalkers are sitting behind the computer drooling
at a streetcam.

Perverts maybe not, stalkers could of course.

Or are they *out* on the street? If you worry about Google, worry about
how small cameras are at the moment...

I'm not worried, but I don't think it's a good idea to have each and
every place on earth webcammed 24/7.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:


"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9712EBB43A002castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

There are ways to mask an IP.

Just as a side note: yes, you can mask an IP for some people, not for
all. And there are other ways to track someone down. In the past I
explained how simple people can be tracked down on Usenet. As long as
people post, and are not carefull, they can be tracked down. Most
people leave traces everywhere. Someone who wants to find them, will.

Shoot the phone book has been out for years, also you can gain info
about anyone by having it looked it up with some agencies.

Yup, Social engineering beats most other things.

You have a choice there...

Can you explain what choice I have if someone using social engineering
with, for example my bank, obtains information regarding my bank account?

Thought we be talking phonebooks... you can choose not be listed for the
wider audience.

Bank... though hugely unpractical... you can opt not to have an account at
all.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Timmermans wrote:

Bank... though hugely unpractical... you can opt not to have an account at
all.

Actually, you can't where I live.
Unless you want to simultaneously opt to have no money.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message

:

That's not an issue, Google is clear about this automatic scanning.
No humans involved.

Yet!

Hhmmm... for some reason I'm thinking DMOZ here.

Can you explain how DMOZ is related with automatic scanning of Gmail to
add ads to mail?

Google is larger then Google.com you know.

Yes, maybe better then most readers here :-)

Google can easily claim it's innocence with a broad spectrum of
affiliates...

So what else is new?

My site ;-)

But underestimating things is what bring about unforeseen problems.
You choose to ignore and you know what, that's fine by me! ;-)

Good, since how are *you* going to stop Google and those agencies?

Not about stopping anyone, me little shrimp agains a multinational, are you
kidding? But no need either to just hand over a free pass either!

Yup, and today, you have to go to the town and ask the neighbours. If
someone wants the info, he/she gets it.

No... you try to simplify and minimize what I'm saying... you're
obviously in love with your favorite crawler (google that is).


*sigh* the old zealot mantra again: if you're not against them, you must
be with them

Well? Are you?

Go back a handfull of years... having satellite pictures would brand
you a spy... people died over such matters!

Really? Funny, in the Netherlands one could buy a picture of ones town
taken from the air. And I didn't see empty spots in those pictures.

See... minimizing again while you know very well that even in the
Netherlands you shouldn't try flying over a sensitive areas like militairy
domains, locations crowded with royal family, powerplants, perhaps even the
capital ...without permission, how long would you last? Nobody gives a damn
about taking pictures of tulips or windmills ;-)

The neighbour thing... See I do not understand why you mention this, I
agree that if you really want something you can get it.

Excellent, we are getting there.

Hang on...

But (before
technology allowed) for most of us this would take resources... common
people do not have these...

And hence they go to a crowded place and blow themselves to little
pieces. You only have to find a crowded place. A big city often works
well.

Innocent people hardly makes a good target, I'm sure you agree.

they don't just jump over the border to
find a suitable target or go out to look in someone backyard.

Yup, so they go to a city and booom!

It's about putting thing in perspective... not so long ago you would
be in trouble if you were able to collect and store the information
you're able to find today... add another couple of years... could
everyone be tapping into live satelitte feeds? Phone taps? The
ability to have a peek through each and every camera that can be foun
on the streets worldwide?

http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2005/01/0...m-hunting.html

getting paranoid already?

Nope. This is not about getting paranoid John, this is about control and
keeping some of it. Knowledge is power... you feed companies knowledge and
they gain power... just how much, that should be up to the individual. I'dd
like for Google not to take snap of my house from any angle, nor provide 3D
images or a cam view from accross the street.... ...the thing is, they don't
ask and it would be near impossible to get it undone.

John... what Google needs to know in my point of view is the virtual
world... your virual space online... and that's it! No need to go online
and see myself typing this message in a live feed! The essentials.

Where does it stop for you? Surely there must be a line somewhere
they should never cross?

I don't worry about it :-) If it bothers me, it bothers other people.
And either all those people can make a change, or not. Probably not.

You rely on other for your safety while you mention yourself this doesn't
work? Now you're the one getting there! ;-)

Thinking it is only *now* possible, thanks to Google, that's naive.

Allright... so tell me then, before the internet and the searchengine
era in general... what would have been your options to (for the
argument) find out more about me?

Using social engineering. Asking around.

And why would you want to?

For the sake of the example you just gave?

Would you like it if someone came into your street asking everyone except
yourself about your every move? Would you not like to know why and what
they want with this info?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress here, I make use of what
is available myself! But that doesn't mean I have to 'surrender' my
info and/or privacy just to gain that extra visit does it?

How about the privacy of that visitor? I mean, you log what he/she does
now don't you?

I have to say yes, but note that it would not really support your point...
my logs turn people into statistics, numbers, pageviews, hits and at best a
location by country or ISP.

No names, no telephone, no address, age, gender, no hair colour, no shoe
size, no specs on their car, no pic or 3D rendering of their house, ...you
get the drift here I'm sure! I cannot refer to one person who's life has
just been stored in a personal file because of my basic stats. As any
common internet user my access to other peoples lives is limited as it
should be... as it ain't for Google.

Progress and all that is very nice, but not at all costs!

Steven

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:59:30 +0800, "Timmermans"
<steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1qtn1p9012fe3r5j7tn1fjf5vj0que9as (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:59:26 +0800, "Timmermans"
steventimmermans (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote:


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress here, I make use of what is
available myself! But that doesn't mean I have to 'surrender' my info
and/or privacy just to gain that extra visit does it?

You probably already did that, if we wanted to collectively start
getting seriously in your case. I doubt you'd be to hard to find from
what you've already given up.


I smell the need to challenge... ...surprise me!

Steven

Better things to do. Anyway, I'm not someone who'se ever gone into
this but I'm well aware thre's those who have and can.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone