[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Lucas <kevin.lucas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 10:25 +0000, Simon Waters wrote: >> On 19/02/11 01:54, Julian Hall wrote: >> > >> > I think education is the way forward. >> >> This line of argument is a red flag to my skeptical brain. >> >> More education is rarely the best answer to a problem like this. More >> education can be good, and reduce problems, but at the end of the day >> there is only finite resource for education. >> >> It is a bit like the phrase "the government should do something about >> this", sometimes it is true, other times it just reveals you haven't >> pondered the other pressures on government's resources. >> >> > The more people understand about >> > what their computer *can* do, the more they'll understand about what >> > some lying scammer *can't* do and will recognise blatant attempts to >> > defraud them without going through the pain of expensive mistakes. >> >> I suspect more education about computers will get us no where, and will >> likely confuse people. More education on common types of scam on the >> other hand might work. People seriously can't be expected to have a >> correct mental model of how their computer works, how their phone works, >> how international direct dialing works etc etc. >> >> On the other hand the moment someone wants "access" to their computer it >> should be like the moment someone wants your front door keys, or your >> bank account details, similar questions should flash across your mind. >> >> However even this education is likely dubious in its success, as >> educators have waxed lyrical about "critical thinking skills" for >> decades, but few schools explicitly teach them. Organised Religion, >> homoeopathy and "alternative medicines" seems to be rife despite this >> focus, and they are your basic big frauds. >> >> > In its' simplest form people need to understand the *only* company who will >> > contact them about a virus being spread by their computer (or whatever >> > other lie they come up with) is their ISP, and even then 99% certain to >> > be an email not a phone call. > This scammer said he was from Microsoft and the problem was the "infected" PC had > been flagged as sending out spam! Yes, very similar to that. It was difficult to understand him to be honest. > So they had been asked by "your ISP" to sort it out before you were > removed from the Internet He did not get that far. > You could ask the question " Should novices be allowed to drive on the > internet?" You could certainly ask. But if the answer is "no" this would prevent most of the population freely using the net would it not? > or conversely > > IF you are a novice should you be restricted to web mail and firewalled > to hell by the ISP? > Could this constitute a breach of a civil or cyber liberty? I dont know. roly :-) -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq