36-40, M
come2gether · 46-50, M
FelicityDavenport · 26-30, F
@come2gether EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
wildfl0wer · 41-45, F
@come2gether I don't understand the issue either. The latter is nosy people you're blocked with. 🙄
What's wrong with having 3000+ posts on here???
I post a lot, too...
I post a lot, too...
View 14 more replies »
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@HootyTheNightOwl I'm not convinced. that article like most in the press is heavier on scaremongering than it is on details. In particular it does not say anything about how it was done.
It says things like:
In my experience traffic from mobile devices is now routinely encrypted. Certainly my email is encrypted and connections to my bank.
The article also says:
That implies that they got into her email first and then found her password. Surely it must be the other way about. My suspicion is that she had an easily crackable password and that the public Wi-Fi had nothing to do with it. The article merely juxtaposes the Wi-Fi and the crime it doesn't actually make a connection between them.
It says things like:
"Data passing over a public Wi-Fi network is often unencrypted. A 'man-in-the-middle' attack is when a hacker intercepts the data travelling between your device and the Wi-Fi router.
In my experience traffic from mobile devices is now routinely encrypted. Certainly my email is encrypted and connections to my bank.
The article also says:
"My son regularly uses my phone when we’re out and about on public WiFi. Police told me hackers just watch for people on open networks. They got into my email, found my password and then managed to access all my other accounts because I used similar passwords for everything."
That implies that they got into her email first and then found her password. Surely it must be the other way about. My suspicion is that she had an easily crackable password and that the public Wi-Fi had nothing to do with it. The article merely juxtaposes the Wi-Fi and the crime it doesn't actually make a connection between them.
@ninalanyon You're never going to get a signed confession of how they did it, if that's the "evidence" you're looking for.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@HootyTheNightOwl Some kind of evidence would be more convincing than no evidence at all though.
beermeplease · M
WillaKissing · 56-60, M
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@WillaKissing Three thousand is quite a lot. As you know I post on my blog almost every day and occasionally in other groups. But that's still less than four hundred a year. I've just checked and I see that I only have 1 321 posts even though the first was six years ago.
I think it's reasonable to be curious but I don't understand why @sp1dwoOfe221 starts with "questioning the motives".
I think it's reasonable to be curious but I don't understand why @sp1dwoOfe221 starts with "questioning the motives".
I mean if they have been a member since 2016 or 2017 and never delete a single post, then it makes sense.
@Wallflow3r I have 12105 posts myself and he seems to have a kink for SW in public libraries for some reason... Maybe they don't rig private homes in Canada with broadband... 🤔🤔🤔
@HootyTheNightOwl HOLY shii 12,000+ is a lot..SW needs to start paying you
@Wallflow3r They prefer trying to silence me better...
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
sp1dwoOfe221 · 36-40, M
goes to show how some ppl can't just sashay their way thru some shitbait post, especially of my making, despite having made up liek 1/3rd of all the posts on SW here leading up to '25...
bijouxbroussard · F
Wrong ? More like useless. What would you do about it ?
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M
That’s a lot
SomeMichGuy · M