Chain emails - the gifts that won't stop giving

I'll start off here with a disclaimer: not every chain/mass email is a malware spreading missive of misinformation, or yet another piece of scammer spam. Some truly are amusing, inspirational, or even informative. I've received things that have made me laugh out loud, moved me to tears, or been worthy of sending on in turn to other potentially interested parties. But like just about everything else on the intarwebs, the noise to signal ratio is high, and gems among the junk are far and few between.

A few months ago, I received yet another chain email from a friend who seems to do little with her inbox other than forward the daily contents to everyone in her address book. We've all got one: that friend or relative who happily shares every junk item they receive, apparently with the belief that someone, somewhere, will find it of some value, or perhaps with the fear that they really will get run over by a transit bus if they don't forward Oprah's Secrets For Success to at least seven people. Filtering my nearest and dearest straight into the spam folder isn't a viable option, and requests to be excluded from future mass mailings seem to be the one type of email that never gets through, so I usually just hit [delete] and move on.

However, this email was not only utter garbage, it was utterly outdated garbage. If you're going to send me crap, at least make an effort to send current crap. This time, I was compelled to compose and send a thorough reply.

Either $Friend ignored my reply or never saw it (I'd bet the latter; it probably got buried in a pile of Acai Berries), because the very next morning I received several more spam servings from her. With a little luck, she at least stayed true to form and forwarded my email to everyone in her address book. In case she didn't, and for the benefit of the few people left on the planet who aren't in her address book, I am posting an "open letter" version of my reply here. Hopefully it will resonate with many...and actually sink in with a few.

Dear Friend,

You know I love you dearly, but you need to not be forwarding this kind of stuff. I'm not even sure you DID forward it on purpose; this sort of spam often is spewed out by an infected computer behind the scenes without the owner even knowing it is happening. Hubby got the same email from you, and when he opened it, it suddenly copied itself all over his inbox - viral red flag behavior for sure. Girl, we want to see you SAFE, online and off. We can't do much about the latter, but we do the former for a living as best we can, for anyone and everyone (un)lucky enough to get on our radar. So, here goes:

1) "THIS TOOK TWO PAGES OF THE TUESDAY USA TODAY - IT IS FOR REAL"

No, it's not. It never was, never has been, and never will be. Honestly, just about every time I see something that blares out in all capital letters "IT IS FOR REAL", that's a dead giveaway it's NOT. And the more "!!!!" that follows said blaring, the more fake it generally is. That it was supposedly real in USA TODAY is the final capper. C'mon - when was the last time anything in USA TODAY was for real?? ;-P

2) "SORRY EVERYBODY.. JUST HAD TO TAKE THE CHANCE!!! I'm an attorney"

All tacky lawyer jokes aside, no self respecting attorney would be forwarding junk chain-email. Unless they're A) really bored and doing it for a joke or, B) their infected computer is doing it for them behind their back. Oh, and notice it's ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and has 3 "!!!" after it. DING DING DING - THAT'S A FAIL!!!

3) "Bill Gates sharing his fortune."

No, he's not. Bill Gates won't even share his fortune with his own kids, from what I hear. Oh, and FYI, Big Bill retired from Microsoft over a year ago - that IS a fact.

4) "It's all marketing expense to him."

No, but somewhere along the line it's probably "marketing" *income* to the yellow bellied pondscum sucking mouthbreathing spammer(s) who *start* these kinds of things, and who obfuscate themselves so that they're nearly impossible to trace. You are not "bound to get at least $10, 000.00". All you are bound to get, eventually, is bounce back notices from friends whose email inboxes have filled to capacity from viral emails like these. Or whose computers have crashed all together.

5) "Please forward this to as many people as possible." <-- **DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER** If there's one written phrase in the English language that'll make me immediately smack the delete button, it's that. Well, that and hearing from some Nigerian banker that an Uncle I never knew I had just got killed in a plane crash and left me $5,000,000. All I have to do to claim it is send Mr. Noobiscam my bank account information and contact his lawyer perrymason@hotmail.com. Um, yeah. I'll get right on that. IMPORTANT (yeah, I know, all caps. So contact the "attorney" who sent this and sue me. ;-)): just how many email addresses are now attached to this sucker anyhow...? To: (MASSIVE EMAIL LIST WITH MULTIPLE FORWARDS - note: in my original note, I copied in roughly a half a page of email addresses, and that was less than half the email addresses in the multiple forwards)

That isn't even all of them, I was just making a point. Guess what? At best, that's how many more times this junk mail has circulated, and how many more people have to pick through it. At worst, that's how many computers are now infected if you've unwittingly forwarded a chain email that contains a link to a "driveby download" website, or worse, an embedded malicious payload. And no, badware doesn't have to come in an attachment anymore. It can be stuck right into the body of an email, if that email contains code or scripts that will run when the message opened.

Girlfriend, if I didn't care, I wouldn't have taken the time to write such a lengthy reply. Please, update the antivirus on your computer and do a scan NOW. And please, please, please, do not forward these sort of emails, and don't answer them. It's entirely possible the person you got it from didn't even send it on purpose. If they did, there *is* one email you can forward on to them - this one.

Give yourself, your husband, and the kids hugs from me and hubby, and if *they're* forwarding junk chain emails, whack them with a keyboard for me. 'kay?

Your sis,

-Peg


So, in closing, if you must forward, forward with some forethought, and not just for the sake of forwarding (and I promise, if you DO get run over by a transit bus, it won't have anything to do with bad email juju...unless you've been forwarding mass quantities of spam to a distribution list of bus drivers). If you take the time to weed out the junk and share only the gems, they're far likelier to actually be read, and even appreciated, by the recipient(s). Don't spread the spam. Think about it: do you stuff all the credit card offers, pizza coupons, and real estate flyers you get in your mailbox into an envelope and mail the whole mess off to your best friend, or your mom?

Oh, and if you get an unexpected email exhorting you to "CLICK HERE" in large red letters - like I just did - just don't.

Don't forward it, either. ;-)

Shiny, happy advertisers. Really!

I finally logged into Facebook this morning to do a bit more than just make sure I remembered my password. Poking around the "My Account" section for the first time since the Great Privacy Update, I received the following popup when I hit the "Facebook Ads" tab:


Advertisers using my photos? Misleading rumors? Get the whole story? I'll give 'em this: they know how to hook a person.

The Facebook blog entry is an interesting read in and of itself, but more interesting to me is the reference to "two entire advertising networks" being unfriended by the big FB itself (actually the number now stands at four). Turns out there's also a list of ad networks that are still considered friendly, for the time being anyway.

Presumably Facebook is aware of the members on this list, even if the "providers are not approved by nor affiliated with Facebook", since the content on the Facebook Developer Wiki "is created by the Facebook team with help from our developers". You still might want to weigh just how evenly matched your social standards are with Facebooks, seeing as how RockYou! isn't very careful with its users passwords, Offerpal recently ditched a foul-mouthed CEO, and Zedo-induced spyware/adware has long been a gift that keeps on giving. Neither of these latter two are getting great reviews from my trusty Firefox plugin, either. I could spend the rest of the day playing in this sandbox with my little bucket and shovel, but I think you get my drift.

Granted it's possible to dig up dirt on just about anyone or anything, and everybody's got a skeleton or two rattling around (I've never kicked a puppy, but I've stuck a few mirrors in front of Siamese Fighting Fish). Facebook taking a shot across the bows of lowend malvertising is a step in the right direction. The Facebook community trying to set some standards with a list of who is nice (or at least not blatantly naughty) is another step in the right direction. That doesn't mean it should be taken at face value, or that the shiny, happy advertisers who made the Nice List are there because they met a bar, rather than just slid underneath it.

It is a place to start, at least for the conscientious crowd who have their eyes set on a long term, sustainable business model as opposed to a short term, rake-it-in-and-run racket. If consumers back them up by voting with their wallets, there may even be a light at the end of the "Scamville" tunnel.

Facebook updates gone wrong

Evidently there are people out there who really, truly don't care about their online privacy OR the new Facebook privacy controls. I admit I'm wondering if this guy, in addition to keeping his fugitive status updates current, is also updating his photo album...? And does he prefer Farmville or Mafia Wars? My play money is on the latter.

Anyone else think the cops should check to see if he's reporting in on Foursquare as well?

Update: as of 12/27/09, "Lazie" is still keeping in touch, so at least he's not slacking there. Apparently he has a little help, as he's given public kudos to his "admin staff".

Um...admin staff? Now there would be some interesting profiles on LinkedIn.

The guy needs to give his admin staff a poke and have them get serious about an advertising campaign. They might start by studying the "relevant" ads that are showing up on his Facebook page. Car insurance? Not so much (although an agency whose ad shows up on Lnych's page is probably not too picky). Drop blood pressure by as much as 60 points? Now that's relevant.

There's plenty of affiliates I'm sure who would fall all over themselves, and if he pimps the right products*, he could make a tidy sum. That might come in handy for bail one of these cold, rainy days.

*no, I'm not going going there. Well, not yet anyway.

Facebook's new path to privacy - a call to common sense

A friend of mine asked me recently if I planned to write any fiction. I gave her my standard response: "No, because I couldn't make this stuff up". Seriously, I can't, and I have a pretty active imagination. They say sometimes life just hands you material. I say life always hands you material; you just have to be able to gather it all up. Right now, my basket is overflowing.

First there was the gathering storm of Facebook revamping its privacy controls, which some viewed as a tempest in a teapot. Then came the rollout. Then came the fallout, with cries of outrage ranging far and wide. To prevent this post from becoming nothing more than a collection of linkbait (and it's already hovering dangerously close), if you want a sampling of these cries, just plug "Facebook privacy fiasco" into your favorite search engine and knock yourself out.

The fun, however, was really just beginning. The highlight for many people - I know it was for me - was the revelation that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's own BMOC, apparently didn't understand the new privacy controls himself, and inadvertently left a bunch of less than flattering photos available to friends of friends of friends of casual acquaintances of total strangers, or something like that. This was followed by stout claims that he really meant to do that, although the hypocrisy of these claims is hard to overlook in view of the fact that Zuckerberg's transparency clouded over shortly after it went massively public. I personally also have to question some of the justifications put forth, certainly in the piece I just referenced:

Bottom line: People don't care about the concept (really an illusion) of privacy nearly as much as other people think they do.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they do. Based on the thousands of comments I've seen over the past week, I think I'm right.

I think people do indeed care about their privacy, and more than other people think they do (or at least more than the executives at large internet companies think they do *cough*). What a lot of people don't understand is the difference between the illusion and the reality. In the world of the intarwebs, there is a wide gulf between the two, and for many people "using various Web sites to post personal stuff in a very public way", it is an invisible divide. Out of sight, out of mind. Until something happens which brings the invisible divide into sharp relief.

Among the various opinions being voiced at varying volumes regarding this latest spotlight on the illusion versus the reality of online privacy are calls for action ranging from lynchings to lawsuits. Even the FTC may be getting involved (whether they want to be or not).

What really needs to be happening is a wake up call to common sense. Maybe, with a little luck, that is what's happening, and maybe Facebook is the trumpet sounding (whether they want to be or not). They probably don't want to be the blast that opens a lot of eyes - especially when those eyes are mostly glaring at them with anger - but what's not so good for Facebook could, ultimately, be good for a whole lot of other folks. It certainly will be if it gets a whole lot of folks to finally grok that the "concept" of "privacy" is "really an illusion".

Online privacy is an oxymoron to begin with. I'd like to have that on a bumper sticker. Or a t-shirt. Or both. Anything to help raise awareness that out in cyberspace, the only one who can really safeguard your privacy is YOU.

Might even help a few people avoid getting their insurance canceled.

Some things are better left unsaid

For better or worse (I lean towards the former, frankly) there's been a huge flap over Google CEO Eric Schmidt's recent interview comment (er, gaffe):

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"

with reactions ranging from slightly paranoid to more calmly practical. Now, predictably, the Google PR Parade is attempting damage control with the tried and true It-Was-Taken-Out-Of-Context defense. So I decided to take a brief break from picking on Facebook (but don't worry, I'll get back to it) to offer Mr. Schmidt a piece of advice he seems to rather desperately need:

If you have something to say that could come across as atrocious if taken out of context, maybe you shouldn't say it in the first place.

Especially not in an interview with CNBC. Yes, Mr. Schmidt, judgment matters. A complete lack thereof can matter even more. Mmmm'kay?

Facebook's new path to privacy (or not)

Facebook today pushed out its new and improved privacy settings, under the guise of giving users "more control" over their information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a pretty good rundown of the "good, the bad, and the ugly" here. Another useful commentary can be found at ReadWriteWeb, and as it appears to be a running one it's probably worth watching. For the snarky side of the story, El Reg has a nice sarcastic spin. There's plenty more coverage of this Big Event; these are just a few that topped my own reading list.

At a surface scratching, the good does indeed appear fairly good, but the bad has the potential to be very bad if you don't pay close attention to what you're doing (c'mon, social networking is about getting everyone else to pay close attention to what you're doing), and the ugly, examined closely, looks to give Freddy Krueger a comparative cuteness score of 9.5 on a scale of 10.

First things first though, and since I have a Facebook account myself (against my better judgment), time to get hands on with this Brave New Facebook World.

Okay, so I start by seeing a "Privacy Announcement":

"We're making some changes to give you more control of your information and help you stay connected. We've simplified the Privacy page and added the ability to set privacy on everything you share, from status updates to photos."

Liar, liar, pants on fire!!

With that knee jerk reaction out of the way, I am amused by how they throw giving me more control of my information into the same sentence as helping me stay connected. Facebook is going to make money via the latter, not the former. Ergo, it's the latter I'm going to pay close attention to - that's where their attention is focused, I'm sure.

"At the same time, we're helping everyone find and connect with each other by keeping some information—like your name and profile picture—publicly available."

Ah HA. Now we're talking, or at least they are. Thank you SO much for "helping" everyone, including me, by deciding for me to "keep" some of my information publicly available.

Unfortunately I don't use Facebook often enough to remember exactly what information I had previously decided to NOT keep publicly available, only that I had my settings cranked to paranoid. But that's okay. Facebook knows what's best for me.

"The next step will guide you through choosing your privacy settings. You can learn more about how privacy works here."

Riiiight. Let's see how this "guide" works.


Looks like my Old Settings pretty much run counter to Facebooks recommendations, other than Email Addresses and IM, and Address, which we seem to agree should be shared with Friends. Evidently in Old Settings I had not specified Only Friends, but I'm sure Facebook and I also agree on the difference between the two, and hopefully at some point they'll explain it to me. I trust them, really I do. Not enough, however, to take any of their other recommendations.

I do award them a point for putting an obvious truth in writing, although they fudged the wording ever so slightly. It's still close enough for government work, and a nice bit of CYA.

I changed the email/IM setting anyway, just to see what happened.


Cool, now my email and IM are set to Only friends. I do still have to wonder what separates the new privacy setting of "Friends" from the old privacy setting of "Only Friends". It seems there is a difference, or else why would there even be an option to change it? Facebook doesn't seem inclined to clarify that. Meh, whatever.

DISCLAIMER: The Privacy Settings Screen did NOT say "email and IM screen name" for Only friends can see, nor "EVERYTHING ELSE" for custom settings. That's my own screenshot tweak. If I want my email and IM screen name limited to only friends, I'm not gonna turn around and post 'em here in a screenshot (besides, you can find what info I'm willing to share via this blog in my profile :)). And the finer details of what all I choose to keep private really isn't anybodys business (except mine and Facebooks). If you're that curious, go check your own Facebook Privacy settings. In view of what's going down, you really should do that anyway.

Having made that recommendation, I am both out of time and Facebooked-out, so my own under the hood digging regarding the new and improved privacy settings will have to wait. I've little doubt it will prove...educational.

Oh, that bit of obvious truth that Facebook fudged ever so slightly?

Facebook version:

"Information you choose to share with Everyone is available to everyone on the internet"

Well, like I said, they're close.

Here's the real version:

"Information you choose to share with Everyone is available to everyone on the internet"

Folks, out there on the intarwebs, that is as private as it gets.

Hello, Video Professor? This is Barbara Streisand calling.

Even after all my years in tech, there are still a few things that surprise me. One of them is how supposedly tech savvy people, and companies, will commit an utterly avoidable mistake, even after others before them have committed the same mistake, and often on a fairly spectacular scale.

If you follow tech news at all, you should be aware by now of the brouhaha stirred up by the TechCrunch exposé (among others) regarding "scammy" adverts in online social network games, with Facebook primarily profiled as the poster child. Even if you don't follow tech news, you've probably seen some reference to the whole sordid mess, as it got picked up by mainstream outlets like The Washington Post and Time, as well as the far geekier Slashdot. I'd love to write a post about it all myself, but so much has already been written, and so well, that anything I might have to add would likely be more noise than signal.

Amongst all the noise - and signal - was a brief reference to an ad for the "Video Professor". You've likely seen the TV commericals, where this guy who looks a bit like a cross between J. Jonah Jameson and the Monopoly Banker tells you he can make you a whiz-bang wizard with Microsoft Word, or Excel, or Powerpoint, or whatever, with his comprehensive, interactive lessons, all available on CDs with a free trial blah-blah-blah . Yeah, you can tell how those ads had me riveted. For one thing, I don't need to learn -->insert program here<--; of the stuff touted by the Video Professor, either I already know it or I don't use it. If I do need to learn a new trick in Microsoft Word (or whatever), there are plenty of available online resources, some from Microsoft themselves, and I don't have to check out these resources as a "free trial", they are just plain free. For another thing, I need more software CDs like I need a hole in the head (BTW, if anyone out there wants some nerdy drink coasters, drop me a line).

Since I never gave the venerable Video Prof more than a glance in passing, it never occurred to me to stop and take a hard look at him as a possible scammer. Not until now, that is. You'd think a company that claims to be in the business of teaching people how to use computers would be familar with the Streisand Effect, and would know better than to put themselves squarely on the map with it. Evidently the Video Professor missed this lesson, and has managed to get the undivided (and no doubt unwelcome) attention of the watchdogs at TechCrunch, going from being just a "side note" to a target on which TC (and MA in particular) is focused "like a laser". Oops.

Of course, the Streisamd Effect once set in motion generates its own self-perpetuating momentum, so naturally references to the "Video Professor Scam" are popping up on the 'net like mushrooms after a spring rain, ranging from side notes (that one's a single sentence mention following list item #5) to focused lasers. I'm sure more references will pop up, including this one as soon as I post it. For my own safety, I'm going to shield myself with that journalistic device Mike Arrington so hates (even though I Am Not A Journalist) and declare that the opinions expressed in any and all articles linked here are not necessarily my own. It is up to you, Gentle Reader, to judge the sources on their own merit and decide for yourself if the Video Professor's schtick does indeed qualify as a scam.

Now, I will go out on a bit of a limb here and state that at the very least, I think you could find a much better value for your money than the Video Professor's CDs, starting with a set of second hand dish towels and some macramé plant hangers from your local garage sale or flea market. That most definitely is my opinion, and it is, as always, absolutely free.