In message , MissRiaElaine
writes

"Social media" are two words that should never have been combined in
the same sentence if you ask me. I've seen teenagers on the bus
communicating with each other by FarceBuke or whatever when they could
just as easily turn their heads and open their mouths. Why..??!!

Nothing new there. I used to know a couple about 15 years ago, they used
to play Scrabble online - She in the bedroom on the laptop, him in the
living room on the desktop.
I asked them why they didn't just buy a Scrabble board. ( I discovered
why when I played with her online sometimes - it's easier to cheat
online!!)
--
Bryan Morris

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:33 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

I've seen teenagers on the bus communicating with each other by
FarceBuke or whatever when they could just as easily turn their heads
and open their mouths.

Not a new thing. In the office where I was working in 2001, people would
email someone sat beside them, to ask when they wanted to go out to
lunch.

It was less intrusive than interrupting their train of thought with a
verbal question.

There are probably quite a few people in their late 50’s who look with
askance at young people communicating in the various ways now possible ,
and forget that they sat within an old car chatting with their friends
also sat in various older cars parked a few yards away in the same car park
using a technically illegal CB
radio because they could and it was a little bit naughty.


I’m of the generation where the phone was kept for really important calls
like Dads business and speaking to relatives that involved making a Trunk
call only happened a few times a year, growing up on an isolated farm
meant that at Weekends and School holidays regular contact with school
chums was confined to a couple of mates who were in convenient cycling
distance at roughly a four mile round trip.
Youngsters today with communication freedom can stay in contact with a far
wider social circle if they wish which on the whole probably isn’t a bad
thing though it does of course mean they can reach or be reached by
more undesirables.
And as for communicating by opening their mouths, well how long will it
take too describe a photograph or video accurately, easier to just send it.
The Railways ,Trams and the Bicycle were amongst the first step changes to
allowing a greater number of people to interact outside their immediate
community, then cars but youngsters cannot not get their hands on those
till they are almost adults and even then running one can be too expensive.
Keeping in constant touch using their phone may look annoying to some of
us older people but is probably a lot safer than going to and especially
from the pub to meet friends and then drinking far too much which was
regarded as fairly normal in my teens .
The present generation of young do far less of that than we did.
My Sister said of her two millennial children ,if they had been around
when I was their age we would have considered them a bit boring.

GH

In message , at 15:14:00 on Fri, 19 Jul
2019, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:

Facebook has sufficient critical mass, and manages to keep
kooks out successfully enough, that it's possible to link up with people
who are almost famous in their day jobs (and will never have heard of
Usenet; nor if they had, be the slightest bit inclined to join in).

Facebook connections being split into Friends (for people) and Pages (for
famous people and organisations) means that I’m unlikely to send a friend
request to the personal profile of someone remotely famous; Twitter OTOH is
much better for that sort of thing, as it has only one level of
'Following'.

I follow vanishingly few "pages" which are dedicated to people (rather
than organisations), but of late I've been joining lots of closed
groups. Like 'Mainline Steam Specials'.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:32:43 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, Marland remarked:

There are probably quite a few people in their late 50’s who look
with askance at young people communicating in the various ways now
possible , and forget that they sat within an old car chatting with
their friends also sat in various older cars parked a few yards away in
the same car park using a technically illegal CB radio because they
could and it was a little bit naughty.

Although I was never licenced (and hence never practised) myself, I used
to hang out when I was still at school with sundry "2 Metre" radio hams
(as they hate to be called). A couple of them even had cars with mobile
equipment in. Not bad for almost 50yrs ago. Transistorised too (which
was how I got into electronics, really, and see how that turned out).

Later, this bunch of retrobates: https://www.g6uw.org/introduction
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:36:40 on
Thu, 18 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:32:23 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:07:01 on
Thu, 18 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:03:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:15:25 on
Wed, 17 Jul 2019, David Walters remarked:
Ooh, that's a bit strong..! What's wrong with old phones, anyway..?

For a 'dumbphone', not a lot.

Using a smartphone once it no longer receives security patches isn't
something I would do personally.

What's the main threat you are trying to avoid?

Mostly some malware getting installed via a remote or drive-by
vulnerability.

What kinds of drive-by malware has been known to be delivered via apps
like Facebook and Twitter?

I'm not aware of any but I use many other apps on my smartphone such
as Chrome which has had bugs exploited in the past. One example is at
https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2016...droid-malware/.
That still requires an extra step but a similar bug might not.

That's fixed by an upgrade to the browser app, which I don't regard as
coming into the category of "software patches [that one might no longer
be getting].

My phone which isn't getting *Android* updates, has still managed to
automatically update itself to Chrome dated 4th June 2019. Which is the
latest release version.

What is the malware trying to achieve.

Perhaps it will be combined with some kind of permissions exploit that
means it can harvest data from other apps which in my case would include
my banking details/tokens. I could not have banking apps on my smartphone
but I choose to for the convenience and balance some of the risk by
having an up to date OS. Your choice might be different.

Indeed. I would never have a banking app on my phone unless it was of
very little importance. Although like Chrome, I'd hope to be getting
updates to the *app* which in turn had countermeasures for know exploits
within *Android*.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/07/2019 15:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:33 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

I've seen teenagers on the bus communicating with each other by
FarceBuke or whatever when they could just as easily turn their heads
and open their mouths.

Not a new thing. In the office where I was working in 2001, people would
email someone sat beside them, to ask when they wanted to go out to lunch.

It was less intrusive than interrupting their train of thought with a
verbal question.

Blimey, what were they thinking about..? Government policy..? (Sorry,
that just slipped out..)

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 19/07/2019 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalentÂ* ofÂ* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll beÂ* writing aboutÂ* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2Â* requirement thatÂ* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are toppedÂ* up at least once aÂ* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
isÂ* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
Â*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
theÂ* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apartÂ* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidisedÂ* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

For my usage, PAYG with no topup required fits the bill. Why would I pay
more..?


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalentÂ* ofÂ* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll beÂ* writing aboutÂ* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2Â* requirement thatÂ* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are toppedÂ* up at least once aÂ* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
isÂ* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
Â*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
theÂ* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apartÂ* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidisedÂ* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

No PAYG deals require monthly top-ups.


For my usage, PAYG with no topup required fits the bill. Why would I pay
more..?

I used to be on PAYG, and am very glad now to be on a SIM-only contract —
it makes my mobile phone so much more useful. I now realise how silly I was
to stay on PAYG for so long.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:56:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 19/07/2019 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:40 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:
Networks have tried hard over the years to introduce their
equivalent* of* "standing charges" to fight back a little bit. One
I'll be* writing about* later (in more detail) in another
subthread, is the O2* requirement that* PAYG phones wanting to use
the tube Wifi are topped* up at least once a* month.

A standing charge equals a contract. Making someone top up monthly
is* effectively forcing them onto one in all but name.
*It's a slight discount, because the typical top-up would be £10 and
the* typical contract £30. And because you can stop any time you like
(apart* from some more recent hybrid plans that include a
partly-subsidised* phone) it's not in any sense a "contract".

Semantics. In all but name it is. If you have to pay a certain amount
of money each month regardless of how much you use it, then to me it's
a contract.

It's vastly more than semantics. The whole point of the "contract"
system for mobile phones (and many other infrastructure accounts) is
locking someone in for a minimum period. The impossibility of resigning
early is the only thing about the contract that ever really maters.

You can have one-month rolling contracts, say £10 a month. Some
operators may call it PAYG but it's still a contract as far as I'm
concerned and I wouldn't touch one with a very long pole.

No PAYG deals require monthly top-ups.

Yes they can.
para 15 in :-
https://www.o2.co.uk/termsandconditi...o-tariff-terms
and IIRC any other providers where you get more than just a simple
charge for each minute, megabyte or text on PAYG.


For my usage, PAYG with no topup required fits the bill. Why would I pay
more..?

I used to be on PAYG, and am very glad now to be on a SIM-only contract —
it makes my mobile phone so much more useful. I now realise how silly I was
to stay on PAYG for so long.

In message , at 23:41:26 on Fri, 19
Jul 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

I've seen teenagers on the bus communicating with each other by
FarceBuke or whatever when they could just as easily turn their heads
and open their mouths.

Not a new thing. In the office where I was working in 2001, people
would email someone sat beside them, to ask when they wanted to go
out to lunch.
It was less intrusive than interrupting their train of thought with
a verbal question.

Blimey, what were they thinking about..? Government policy..? (Sorry,
that just slipped out..)

Internet-core engineering mainly.
--
Roland Perry