Dumpling in a Hanky

On the 21st of this month, I received an email from a company*, advertising their upcoming online seminar, and various other online courses they ran, including ones on the Data Protection Act, and information security. Since I wasn't interested in their courses, and didn't remember signing up to receive any marketing materials from this company,  I clicked on the unsubscribe link. However, when the unsubscribe page opened, the name and email fields were already completed...and none of the information was mine. In fact, the email address was for a Junior School in Portsmouth (edited version below). This is not great, in terms of information security...you know, that thing they're running online courses on? So, I replied to them within an hour, pointing out that the information in those fields was not mine, and they might want to do something about that. To date, I've not received an acknowledgement of my email, or any form of response. I was also not alone in r...

For your sterling efforts at continuing the stereotyping of librarians as old, boring...with a secret filthy side. Of course, nobody you sent this image to in an email about online security could possibly find this annoying, right? Older, slightly frumpy lady + Glasses + Standing in front of a wall of card files = Geeky, secretly-pervy librarian.

If it appeared to come from Facebook, and just asked you to confirm your name, date of birth and email address? Or would you give an old school friend your eBay password? Apparently, those details were enough for scammers to steal money from individuals who'd been perhaps a little too forthcoming with personal information on social networking sites. It does seem that they were perhaps using some of their personal information that they also publicly shared as passwords, but still, how much do you trust Facebook and similar sites? Would you be as wary about clicking links in an email that appeared to come from them or giving personal info as you would if it came from a stranger? Do we now trust these sites more than banks, to the extent that an email from them must be authentic and reliable?

First mice , and now protesters ...it's really not been a good few days for the SP!

Reading this article referred to by James Mullan , I can see a lot of sense in it. Although I deliberately don’t blog anything provocative, and I’ve not made great attempts to hide my identity, I feel I’m reasonably anonymous, unless I choose to give away more information / contact others. But meeting with a colleague from another sector last week, she told me how she’d been looking for a quote about Facebook for a presentation, and found a post on a blog which seemed to say what she wanted…then she saw the name of the blog, read the profile…and a few things added up to confirm that the blogger was me. Now, that’s not a problem, I know her, she knows me, and I’m happy enough to be identified as the author of this blog (what my employers view on that may be is unknown, as yet!), but it just shows what a small world it really is…especially in the legal profession in Scotland ! If I’m identifiable professionally, what about personally? In my personal blog I’d though I was very...

…be aware that there’s a large vulnerability regarding cookies, allowing hackers access to your email accounts etc, potentially for years. More info http://www.out-law.com/page-8352

C'mon British Airways, what good are these measures really going to do, other than create feelings of huge paranoia and fear in your passengers? Why will you need to scan faces twice? Do you think people are coming through with Mission Impossible style rubber face masks and false fingerprints, escaping detection by eagle eyed security staff (who're otherwise occupied trying to figure out if over 100ml of baby milk is allowable, and confiscating highly dangerous nail clippers in case they're used on the flight to threaten anyone with a nasty nip), then ripping them off as soon as they think they're clear of security? Will it really be a case of "your face doesn't fit here mate"? And would it not have been far simpler to just keep international and domestic lounges separate? Or would that mean you'd have no good excuse for introducing yet more invasive tracking of individuals in the name of 'security'? Link via RFIDNews