# Your relationship with social media



## Bullgrit (Jun 1, 2015)

What is your relationship with online social media? Are you all in all the time with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, discussion forums, etc.? Or are you a social media hermit? Do you love the whole concept of social media, or do you consider a scourge of civilization?

If you are all in with social media, is it personal choice or because of your profession? If you are a hermit, is it personal choice or because you just have no need?


Secondary subject:

How many online accounts (usernames w/ passwords) do you have?

Bullgrit


----------



## delericho (Jun 1, 2015)

I have to use Twitter for my pipe band. I hate it.

I'm not on Facebook.

I do have a blog though.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 1, 2015)

I've started cutting back on it.  I have removed all social media from my mobile phone (and even buried the email app deep within folders to make it awkward to get to).

I was using it too much.  A couple of weeks ago, after I removed all the social media stuff from my phone, I was in the pub and looked around. Of our group of 6, 4 were looking at their phones.  

That said, it's essential for my work with EN World.  I can't cut it out completely.  I'm one of Google/FB/Twitter's pawns!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2015)

Put me in the hermit category.  It's got its uses, and I will recommend it for certain purposes, but I'm not really interested.  I don't have a past or present Twitter, Facebook, etc. account.

Hell- I barely even text message.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 1, 2015)

The Walmartification of the internet does bother me.  Giant multinationals like Google are hard to compete with by tiny businesses like those closing down all over the web.  Obviously, I'm biased, being one of those tiny businesses, but it is a long-term worry.

Generally, I think the best (only) strategy is to join them, and integrate social media into small websites like this one.  Of course, that annoys a lot of people, too, but I feel that in the long term it's a survival necessity.  Doesn't mean I like it, but it's what it is.


----------



## Dioltach (Jun 1, 2015)

I have a LinkedIn account for visibility as a self-employed professional. I have an account on Enworld. That's it.

I can understand the value on a basic level, as a means of an informal way of communicating and staying in touch with people, but I don't understand people who think their random thoughts, pictures of their food and likes and dislikes are interesting enough that they deserve to be shared with the whole world. My theory is that a lot of people secretly think they're one insightful tweet away from being recognised as a great wit or philosopher and achieving instant fame.

And yes, I strongly feel that they should stay off my lawn too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2015)

I _do_ have a Linkedin account.

As for accounts on password-protected sites, well, I have LOTS.  Some are for fun, like EnWorld, Guitar Player, and Ultimate-Guitar.  Some are for shopping: Amazon, Reverb, eBay, and the like.  Some are professional.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jun 1, 2015)

LinkedIn is it for me.  My life is very full, so the time I would take at a social media site would have to come from somewhere else, and I don't see the value of social media as being higher than even the least of my current activities.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 1, 2015)

Facebook is used to keep track of things for me, TV Shows, RPG Kickstarter news, and selected other interest.  I may make a comment on something but have not posted anything for some time.  
Twitter, don't have a use for it.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jun 1, 2015)

Only facebook, where I get most of my news on stuff that interests me and chat with friends and acquaintances when face to face is not possible. 

Have never tried Twitter, and probably never will. It's too easy to sound stupid with such a limited character count. No Instagram either, since I'm not much of a voyeur to photo the s**t out of everything I see with my phone. Not a frequent poster on forums I'm a member of (including Enworld sadly).

Only use one username, which is what I use here. Have different passwords for different stuff, because of some stupid password requirements.

Simply put, I think social media is wonderful tool for communication, but you really have to be careful with what you say or do, lest you be targeted with a online hate parade.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 1, 2015)

I have a personal Facebook account that I participated on for a couple of months back 5+ years ago, and then never again. I have a Bullgrit (business) FB account that I rarely do anything more than post links to my blog. I have a Bullgrit Twitter account that I haven't used (tweeted) but maybe a dozen times, again 5+ years ago. Other than occasional discussion forum posting, my blog is my only real online social interaction.

For me, my lack of online social interaction is an affect of time limitations. If I didn't have a job, or family, or other responsibilities/activities, I'd be all over social media.

For my second question:

Oh god, I have so damn many online accounts. I have a 4-5 page (three columns) Word doc with all my usernames and passwords (and security questions). And very few of those accounts were created by choice. The vast majority of them are because you can't do anything online without setting up an account. I had to order a part for my lawn mower a couple weeks ago, and to order a one-time $10 part from the online store I had to make an account. I'd estimate that I have around 40 online accounts -- everything from regular gaming to one-time store purchases.

I recently made everyone in my family list out their account names and passwords (wife, and two sons now old enough to start having online accounts for various things). My 14 year old son has at least 3 online accounts required because of school.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2015)

I do have Facebook and G+ accounts, for keeping up with a few select individuals, and because a couple of groups I do things with use Facebook as their primary communication tool these days.  I have a LinkedIn account for professional purposes.  I don't spend a whole lot of time on any of these.  Pinterest, Instagram, and Twitter?  I don't have accounts. 

I would characterize my overall relationship with social media as "passing acquaintances".  I simply don't have much need or desire to use it to any major degree.


----------



## Dog Moon (Jun 1, 2015)

I pretty much never got into anything but Facebook, which I check occasionally but rarely post anything.  For the most part, I don't really care about social media.  I have my gtalk which I use to talk to my friends frequently, and texting, so I don't really need to go on any social networks and chat with people I don't even know.

I only got into Facebook because my coworkers at work a couple jobs ago were talking about Facebook all the time so eventually I created my account.  Which ended up being a good thing because a while later someone I knew but hadn't talked to in YEARS suddenly one day appeared on Facebook after having seen one of those "You may know this person" pictures and we eventually got married.  So yay for Facebook, though I still haven't been interested in any other types of social account.  I keep Facebook around I suppose just because I figure I should have ONE social account.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 1, 2015)

I have a Facebook account that I read about once a week and post in about once a month.  It's a convenient way to keep track of acquaintances that I am fond of but don't have time to devote a lot of effort to an active friendship (e.g. old friends from high school, ex-coworkers, people who I used to hang out with but now live a few states away from).

I have a handful of news and forum sites like ENWorld that I read often, and a smaller handful that I post to occasionally.  I have a LinkedIn for business.  I have accounts at a few social media sites that I've never actually used.

Overall, I would consider my social media use quite middle ground.  I have enough internet presence that I can be connected to people when I need/want to, and enough separation that I can ignore it and not feel like I'm missing anything.


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 1, 2015)

I have FB,and twitter. I use FB to keep up with friends and family stuff I'm interested in. With my twitter,I use it to keep up with even more stuff i'm interested and it's also one way that one of the companies that I pay money to play game does CS.

Clearly,I'm a member of this forum, and at least two other forums.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 2, 2015)

Depends on what you call social media. Are we only talking about Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin? Do we expand that to Instagram, Youtube, and the like? Forums? They're all a form of social media and have their own peculiar form of interaction.

As a computer professional I have a love/hate relationship with things like social media. I have a LinkedIn account (get notifications, but don't use it), G+ (by virtue of having a couple of Gmail accounts; never use the thing), frequent Youtube. No Instagram or Twitter, both of which I consider to be truly worthless. No one wants pictures of my dinner, nor 140 character expulsions of my narcissism. I don't own a smartphone, though I have to use one at work. It stays in the desk when I go home and my personal phone is a flip. It wouldn't even have a camera on it, if I'd had the option of not, and even that phone isn't on my person. It's generally in a backpack, or the like. I wear a pocket watch; a mechanical wind-up.

I had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to Facebook which I do actually get some use out of. It keeps me connected with clients of my tiny, little motorcycle racing photography sideline. It has, however, proved useful in connecting me with a very diverse group of people. Never would have thought that I'd communicate with actors a continent away on a regular basis, for example, nor that I'd occasionally be sending some of my work their way.

Like many things I would say that it's good in moderation. Like many things I would say that there's a vast horde of people out there who can't use it in moderation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 2, 2015)

Tonight, because of pressure from my mom, my cousins came over and enabled everyone's FaceTime and messaging apps.

To thank them, I immediately sent them rude messages & images.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jun 2, 2015)

I have accounts on LinkedIn and Xing, but don't use them actively. Apart from that I'm probably something like a social media autist. 

Frankly speaking, I'm not interested in by the minute reports of what other people are doing, be they my friends or not. I value my private life and privacy and expect the same from people around me.

Or, in other words, I want to actively decide which persons and topics I want to deal with at any given point in time, and not just reacting because some message just came in.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Tonight, because of pressure from my mom, my cousins came over and enabled everyone's FaceTime and messaging apps.




Which brings up a difficult distinction - the difference between "social media" and "communications technologies".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 2, 2015)

The line IS blurry, but I think social media allows for more broadcasting and less control over who gets the initial info than do communications tech.  I just brought that up as an indication of my hostility. 

IOW, if I ever have to be on true social media for anything other than business purposes...well...it may be NSFW.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The line IS blurry, but I think social media allows for more broadcasting and less control over who gets the initial info than do communications tech.




Depends on the media. Twitter is broadcasting.  Facebook has tight privacy controls so you control exactly who sees any given item.  G+ is similar, I think, though I find it a bit confusing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 2, 2015)

But even with the potentially tight setting controls, Facebook can also be used to broadcast to the world.  Can't really do that with a messaging app.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 2, 2015)

Part 1: I am mostly a hermit, as facebook is all and that is sporadic.

Part 2: I have but one, but I had made a joke account a long time ago named"the other guy" Or something like that.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But even with the potentially tight setting controls, Facebook can also be used to broadcast to the world.  Can't really do that with a messaging app.




I think it is even safe to say that broadcast (with perhaps some focus and filtering) is the intended use the designers had in mind.  Facebook proper is not really designed for one-on-one conversation.  They have a separate Messenger functionality for that purpose.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just brought that up as an indication of my hostility.




Being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, in other words?

I have found that adopting new technology and communication paths really annoys me... until I actually have a need for it.  I don't early adopt just because a thing is new and shiny.  I adopt because I need the darned thing.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, in other words?
> 
> I have found that adopting new technology and communication paths really annoys me... until I actually have a need for it.  I don't early adopt just because a thing is new and shiny.  I adopt because I need the darned thing.



dittos this. If I say any more, it might be subject to scrutiny by the admins and I would get ban-hammered.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 3, 2015)

I think participating on/with Facebook, et al. is more driven by having a personality for socializing than by having a personality for adopting technology. 

For instance, I'm very non-social, generally, but I explore the Internet wide and deep. My wife is more social, but less steeped in the Internet as a whole. As I said earlier, I have extremely little to do with FB. My wife gets almost all her information (news, trends, etc.) through FB.

My wife knows all about the lives and goings on with our friends and families because of FB, and I know only what she tells me she saw on FB. But I know far more what's going on in the Internet world than she does. Every time she wants to show me a video or tell me a story she saw on FB, I already know it from my Internet usage. (She doesn't know what a meme is. She's seen some, she just didn't know it was a thing with a name.)

Generally, my wife is very web unsavvy, and I am the family web guru. She comes to me for help with any and all web sites, but she knows FB very well, and I know next to nothing about its workings. So it's not an interest in the Internet or technology that drives interest in social media. It's a drive to be social that people learn to love social media, not a desire to be in the latest application or Internet environment. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Jun 3, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I think participating on/with Facebook, et al. is more driven by having a personality for socializing than by having a personality for adopting technology.
> 
> For instance, I'm very non-social, generally, but I explore the Internet wide and deep. My wife is more social, but less steeped in the Internet as a whole. As I said earlier, I have extremely little to do with FB. My wife gets almost all her information (news, trends, etc.) through FB.
> 
> ...




I have similar patterns with FB and news.  My wife doesn't watch/read the news.  She sees stuff on FB, which by then, is old news.

I listen to NPR in the car and read news.google.com which keeps me reasonably up to date.  The off topic forum usually fills in for "new movies/shows that are coming" for me as well.

Bear in mind, I have been on the internet since 1992.  I predate the web (which came out of the closet in 93/94).  I am a web app developer who's experience aligns directly to the public adoption of the web browser.  So I'm not gunshy of this stuff.

I only use FB to connect to people I personally know.  I seldom post any new stuff as that tends to give away if I am not home.  I sometimes reply to other folks posts.  I usually don't open any links to anything anybody re-posts.  In fact I can't stand that aspect of FB, I wish it only allowed you to post a picture/video YOU took.

On the internet, I never click a link to watch a video.  I can't stand the news sites that do that from google news.  I want to READ an article.  I only go to YouTube to google up how to do a physical process (like open up a playstation) because there's not a written article on it.  I hate videos for learning anything as I'd rather read and see stationary pictures that I can study.

I do all of my personal online stuff under a fake name.  As I work in the tech industry (I have interviewed with the Bing team for instance), I expect my real name to be googled and I would prefer to keep my private interests private.

I only visit a few sites, I have the URLs in my head and am comfortable typing them every time I want to go there (ex. enworld.org, basicinstructions.net, gmail.com, news.google.com, dilbert.com, giantitp.com).  This frees me from any dependency on favorites/links that I might lose (kind of like losing your cellphone means not knowing anybody's phone# nowadays).  And yes, that is pretty much my list of sites I frequent.

I cannot stand the idea of Twitter.  Gather followers and speaking to them from on high in 140 characters sounds like a cult of personality.  As a non-famous person, I want to talk to my friends.  That's it.  Phones, email and FB meet that need.

I also hate texting or Instant Messenging.  It's an interruption to my work when it beeps.  I refuse to install FB's Messenger app for that reason.  Communicating with me outside of the phone should be a Pull relationship, not Push.  I choose when to Pull when I open my email app or FB.  I do not want crap getting Pushed on me.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm told that younger folks don't use Facebook any more, except for its excellent event organising/inviting functions. It stopped being the place to be when everybody's parents joined! It's apparently seen as for old people.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm told that younger folks don't use Facebook any more, except for its excellent event organising/inviting functions. It stopped being the place to be when everybody's parents joined! It's apparently seen as for old people.




Hey! I resemble that!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm told that younger folks don't use Facebook any more, except for its excellent event organising/inviting functions. It stopped being the place to be when everybody's parents joined! It's apparently seen as for old people.



That does make me wonder what everyone's age here, is (or at least the people who've posted answers). Personally, I'm 29.

*(1)* I have a Facebook that I check every couple of days, but I have an app installed to block tons of stuff (all linked videos, for example), and I probably only post something once per week; it's not very useful for me anymore. Then again, I'm very stingy with who I accept as friends (I don't accept requests even from people I've known for years unless I feel we're actually close), so maybe it was never that useful to begin with. But even now, I rarely see things I care about posted on it, even from friends (who are all almost my age, with the others being 2-3 years younger).

*(2)* I got Instagram a couple of months ago after my best friend in Portland (about an 11 hour drive from me) begged me to get it so I could see the stuff she posts; I do like seeing parts of her life, but I've only posted two images so far, so about one per month.

*(3)* I got Twitter a couple of days ago, because that same friend from Portland wanted me to be able to Periscope. So, now I have a Twitter account that I'll never use. Oddly enough, while I think Twitter is absolutely unnecessary for the general populace as a social media platform, I'm the most okay with it. Journalists have done amazing things with Twitter, and that might only get better with Periscope. But we'll see.

*(4)* I have a couple other accounts online, but not many. Here, and maybe 3-4 other hobby sites (so not counting things like my bank).


----------



## Mallus (Jun 3, 2015)

Disclosure: I am an olds, ie 46.

My social media presence is limited to Facebook and two online gaming communities, ie one of them is here.

I don't do Twitter, Instagram, etc. I'll check Yelp, but don't contribute reviews. It's possible I've reviewed something on Amazon. Maybe.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, in other words?
> 
> I have found that adopting new technology and communication paths really annoys me... until I actually have a need for it.  I don't early adopt just because a thing is new and shiny.  I adopt because I need the darned thing.




Sorta! 

I have no interest in the minutia of people's lives as seen on Twitter or Instagram.  

IME, text messaging takes more time than analogous conversations.  There are occasions when it is a better option, but for the most part, I find it inefficient and annoying as fuuu......nk.  For the first several years I had text-message phone capable cellphones, I texted a total of 7 times.  I even waited a few months to respond to a "Happy birthday!" text message...with "I don't text."

Facebook I find to be run unethically, and besides, there is nothing in my life I feel like announcing to what world.

I also have ethical and legal concerns about the way ISPs handle email, but that's a necessary evil, and my concerns will be addressed when certain cases are played out in court...



JamesonCourage said:


> That does make me wonder what everyone's age here, is (or at least the people who've posted answers). Personally, I'm 29.




I'll be 48 in October.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IME, text messaging takes more time than analogous conversations.




Oh it's so much quicker! You can text "Be there at 7.15" without 5 minutes' preamble of smalltalk. If you just want to convey info without surrounding it with a conversation, a text takes 2 seconds.

Plus there's no requirement o reply instantly.  So you can shoot off a question and get a reply when the person has time rather than either interrupting whatever they're doing, or leaving a voicemail asking them to call you back and interrupt whatever you're doing.


----------



## Janx (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm told that younger folks don't use Facebook any more, except for its excellent event organising/inviting functions. It stopped being the place to be when everybody's parents joined! It's apparently seen as for old people.




well, part of that is the age group FB was invented for (college students) and how that group has aged and how it reached the older and younger demographics.  Teens used to whine about not being allowed on FB.  Once FB let them in, they saw their parents were on it, and left.

As I've met a few devs who proudly tell me "they made a social media site", I roll my eyes as who hasn't written or could write a social media site.  The general concept existed before FB (LinkedIn predates it for instance).  So I take references to FB or non FB social media to really being the same bucket of Social Media.  Folks who deviate from FB or just deviants, no different than folks who choose linux because Micro$oft $ux.

The key problem I have with Social Media is that it is a dangerous trap, and it's full of time-wasting crap people used to forward in emails.
posting your activity on FB basically tells people when it's a good time to rob you
it over-shares your personal life in ways that don't need to happen (I had a friend complain about her husband and their argument while he was out of town.  I can't imagine that made resolving the argument easier now that he knows everybody knows)
it tends to leak stuff you didn't want your boss/work to know accidentally (FB changes their code and rules all the time, making accidents happen)
it leaves a trail of activity that you don't need others to see later (like that drunken party from 3 years ago)
it fosters spamming each other with shared links and news that foist political views and crap on each other (yet everybody claims they hate that crap, so who's actually sharing)

If I could truly trust it, and have a platform all my friends really are on (FB is where 90% of all social media users are.  Deviant systems are niche cloisters which means I'd need different accounts for different groups), then social media unto itself is a handy tool for keeping touch and sharing stuff with actual friends.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Oh it's so much quicker! You can text "Be there at 7.15" without 5 minutes' preamble of smalltalk. If you just want to convey info without surrounding it with a conversation, a text takes 2 seconds.




It is rare that I have a message that short to convey.  I'm a touch typist, and most people I know spend more time correcting their message's autocorrect than it would take to just talk to me.  ESPECIALLY if they're in a car on a road with any kind of bumps.


> Plus there's no requirement o reply instantly.  So you can shoot off a question and get a reply when the person has time rather than either interrupting whatever they're doing, or leaving a voicemail asking them to call you back and interrupt whatever you're doing.




That IS a time saver...but I could do likewise with email.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It is rare that I have a message that short to convey.




I'd suggest you may be an outlier. I very, very frequently send short "running late" or "meet at 8" messages which I don't have time to surround with a 10-minute conversation.  Or I'll send my wife a question, knowing she's busy working and she'll shoot a quick answer back when she gets a moment.

Email works too, sure.  It's just quicker, shorter email centered around mobile devices.


----------



## Janx (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Oh it's so much quicker! You can text "Be there at 7.15" without 5 minutes' preamble of smalltalk. If you just want to convey info without surrounding it with a conversation, a text takes 2 seconds.
> 
> Plus there's no requirement o reply instantly.  So you can shoot off a question and get a reply when the person has time rather than either interrupting whatever they're doing, or leaving a voicemail asking them to call you back and interrupt whatever you're doing.




If it was something as simple as "we're on our way" then yes, a txt to a friend who is expecting you to come over is efficient.

I get questions like "Where's the Report object in the .EDMX, it's missing"  which the answer is:
it's not in EnityFramework, it's in the NORM class library project.  The page you're looking at was out of spec and not supposed to be using Entity Framework... and so on...

typing all that techno babble is faster in an email on a keyboard or phone so I can get the context that the developer was really looking at the wrong code-base and about to do work in the wrong order.

Additionally, if my phone beeps or rings, I feel the Pavlovian compulsion to respond.  So, yes, there is a expectation to respond and reply ASAP.  Some people even get snitty about not getting a timely response and blow up your phone trying to get you to respond.  hence the phrase "blowing up my phone" relating to the slew of incoming calls/texts trying to reach you.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> As I've met a few devs who proudly tell me "they made a social media site", I roll my eyes as who hasn't written or could write a social media site.




I can't.



> posting your activity on FB basically tells people when it's a good time to rob you




I have been robbed exactly 0 times since Facebook launched. I've certainly never had any tell me they got robbed because they posted on Facebook.  I wonder if you might be exaggerating a bit? Besides, I'm not Facebook friends with anybody in the local burglar community. 



> it over-shares your personal life in ways that don't need to happen (I had a friend complain about her husband and their argument while he was out of town.  I can't imagine that made resolving the argument easier now that he knows everybody knows)




"It" doesn't.  "She" did.  It only posts what you type!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> If it was something as simple as "we're on our way" then yes, a txt to a friend who is expecting you to come over is efficient.
> 
> I get questions like "Where's the Report object in the .EDMX, it's missing"  which the answer is:
> it's not in EnityFramework, it's in the NORM class library project.  The page you're looking at was out of spec and not supposed to be using Entity Framework... and so on...
> ...




You're Captain Hyperbole today, aren't you?  

Yes, texts are appropriate for certain types of communications.  They aren't designed for writing novels. I think a certain buy-in from the user is required at that level.


----------



## Janx (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I can't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




On an individual basis, I haven't been robbed either by way of FB.  But obviously, I'm hyper vigilant about what I share.  Some folks are too stupid to manage their settings and their stuff is wider open. Especially when they have 600 "friends".

Obviously, FB didn't over-share.  The trap is that it sets an environment where folks like my friend will over share.  Because it's cool to friend everybody.  and post constantly.  and share everything.

That's why it is a trap.  It enables mistakes to happen, where the old ways were sort of less widespread.  At least with telephones, you were only blabbing to 20 people. Not 600.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'd suggest you may be an outlier. I very, very frequently send short "running late" or "meet at 8" messages which I don't have time to surround with a 10-minute conversation.  Or I'll send my wife a question, knowing she's busy working and she'll shoot a quick answer back when she gets a moment.
> 
> Email works too, sure.  It's just quicker, shorter email centered around mobile devices.




Oh, I KNOW I'm an outlier.  "IME" was used as a qualifier!

I'm not 100% sold on "quicker than email" though- I'm a touch typist with fattish fingertips.  It's a LOT more difficult to type on a damn phone than it is on a proper keyboard...or even a tablet.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 3, 2015)

Janx said:


> O
> 
> Obviously, FB didn't over-share.  The trap is that it sets an environment where folks like my friend will over share.  Because it's cool to friend everybody.  and post constantly.  and share everything.




I honestly feel that's the person, not the technology.  People do silly things in all walks of life.  That's your friend's silly thing.


----------



## Janx (Jun 3, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I have been robbed exactly 0 times since Facebook launched. I've certainly never had any tell me they got robbed because they posted on Facebook.  I wonder if you might be exaggerating a bit? Besides, I'm not Facebook friends with anybody in the local burglar community.




Just to re-center on this point, maybe there's a cultural and crime difference between the US and the UK.

In the US, it is common security wisdom to not advertise that you are going on vacation next week or at a restaurant, or your spouse is out of town on business.  I cannot confirm if there were actual crimes based on those kind of posts, but that is the security advice going on.  Plenty of folks do it anyway.  To me, your comment is as if you'd never heard of this, which boggles my mind.  Everybody knows this.  It is known.

Nextly, last year, my house was broken in while I was out of town for 3 days and my wife was at home.  My truck is normally in the driveway almost all the time, except for then because I had to park at the airport.  My wife went out for 2 hours in her car, and that's when it happened.  No, I didn't post online about my travel plans, but bad guys ARE observing neighborhoods and noticing patterns (like the one day that house has no cars parked).  it can be as mundane as noticing parked cars, but online information also lures criminals in now.

last month, a girl got raped in TX when she went to do a trade with somebody from craigslist.  Granted, that's craigslist, den of people I don't trust.

Given that most IT crime is inside jobs (80%) and most sex crimes are somebody you know, just because I think I know somebody on my friends list, doesn't mean I really know them.  Or that their friend doesn't have access to the laptop or phone to look for trouble that I can't anticipate.  Thus, a key risk social media invites is sharing stuff more broadly than you expect and having somebody who is connected to you decide to take advantage.

The US is chock full of people who do not take my points seriously.  But my position is pretty common in the info security world, even if the actual risk is low for normal folks who don't over-share.

Personally, I think it would be pretty fun to take pics of my trip and share them on FB.  But my gut tells me the internet does not need that data that I am not home and the pics can wait until I upload them when I get home.  It's simply an unnecessary risk to take for something that can wait.  like responding to a text while driving.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 3, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oh, I KNOW I'm an outlier.  "IME" was used as a qualifier!
> 
> I'm not 100% sold on "quicker than email" though- I'm a touch typist with fattish fingertips.  It's a LOT more difficult to type on a damn phone than it is on a proper keyboard...or even a tablet.




If you're an outlier, then so am I. For example I don't see the need for two technologies that do the same thing. Especially so when they are both essentially as fast and one is significantly more flexible than the other.


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I honestly feel that's the person, not the technology.  People do silly things in all walks of life.  That's your friend's silly thing.




Of course it's the person.

The technology has changed such that it enables a silly person to make a bigger mess of things.

As the old adage, to err is human.  To really screw up takes a computer.

20 years ago, the worst you could do is play chinese whispers on the telephone and get the gossip wrong.  Or forward a bad email to your boss.  Or look at porn and get a virus on your PC.

Today, what you post sticks around and in the case of FB has your real name on it.  And last year's foolishness gets found in a search result because your privacy settings were too open or FB changed their engine again.  People have gotten fired or not hired in the US based on FB and google searches.  DMCA had to get invoked to bar employers from requiring you to share your FB password with them on condition of job offer (they were logging into your account to look at your stuff).

I have one friend who complained about work or a co-worker, and was friends with a friend who got word back and started trouble.  Obviously, the starting lesson is watch what you say.  But in the old days, a phone conversation isn't proof you said anything, whereas people take screenshots with their phone to forward as evidence to get somebody in trouble.  NextDoor.com (a neighborhood closed social media site I'm on) has a policy that expressly forbids that, for that reason.

Where I'm coming from is that culturally (in the US at least) young folks are fearlessly over-sharing in ways that have been starting to impact them negatively.  Hopefully the consequences will curb the trend, but it's pretty different that us 40+ year olds just don't share as much as the 20/30 year olds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Tangent: I got into a long discussion about why I don't use Craigslist.  Here in Texas, we have at least one violent crime of some type- including murders- associated with it per month.

I don't care how good the deals are, I'm not taking that risk.

The pro-Craigslist posters were agog at my "excessive" caution.

It wasn't until just a few days ago I learned that someone pegged the odds of being victimized that way are roughly equivalent to the odds of being struck by lighting while golfing in the rain.

...something else I refuse to do.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Tangent: I got into a long discussion about why I don't use Craigslist.  Here in Texas, we have at least one violent crime of some type- including murders- associated with it per month.
> 
> I don't care how good the deals are, I'm not taking that risk.
> 
> ...



golfing in the rain is a really good chance to get "Ionized "

I got a simalar response from my brother and sister in law


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

The point is, humans aren't good about risk assessment in daily life.  Most people won't play golf in the rain, and will ridicule those who do...but I got a lot of chiding for not doing something similarly risky.


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 4, 2015)

I find that I can't stand those hyper-vigilant people, to me it's like why do you even brother having a computer that's connected to the net,if you're that worried? 

 My mom who is almost 60 only has family and close friends on her FB,not even co-workers back when she was working. 


As with  Morrus, I honestly don't feel worried getting robbed due to FB, we got robbed once before long before FB was even thought of. 

Now I picture Janx sitting on a chair yelling at people younger than him "dang nabbit kids get off my lawn with your crazy hair and music" lol


EDIT: After clicking on one of those threads that enworld recommends due to topic title i found the following :



Morrus said:


> I find myself wondering what's next. From the hardware front, I think smartphones will give way to wearable tech (whether that's glasses, watches, patches, wristbands, etc.) The software is, I think, going to get more and more sharey before it gets less so.




Psst..wanna buy an apple watch?


Here's the old thread from two years ago if anyone else wants to take a look http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...edia-and-our-info-out-there-on-public-display

EDIT II : 







Bullgrit said:


> Is this an "over 30" paranoia? With growing up in the FB/Twitter/etc. society, are the younger folks more accepting?
> 
> Bullgrit



 Yes


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have no interest in the minutia of people's lives as seen on Twitter or Instagram.




No argument there.



> IME, text messaging takes more time than analogous conversations.




If what you need is a conversation, then yes, certainly.  Overall, the written word is just about the lowest bandwidth communication form we have available to us.  Face-to-face or voice-to-voice is certainly better for fullness of communication.  



> There are occasions when it is a better option




Specifically, when there is a very short message or exchange, and it is okay (or actually preferrable) for it to be asynchronous.  The overhead of a "conversation" of repeated back-and-forth voice messages is greater than that of text messages.  If your life doesn't lead to these, then yeah, text messages aren't something you need much.



> but for the most part, I find it inefficient and annoying as fuuu......nk.




Well, funk has its place - Motown.  Not so good in cheese or feet 



> I also have ethical and legal concerns about the way ISPs handle email, but that's a necessary evil, and my concerns will be addressed when certain cases are played out in court...




I acknowledge that this leads into politics, but I admit to being curious about which cases you mean.


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 4, 2015)

For me its:

 I have been on BBS and email (back in the day it kinda was social media - people spamming out their jokes and such) since before the internet was cool
 Never was on MySpace
 Had a Twitter account. Decided that 99% of it is noise (vs info) and deleted the accounts.
 I have a FB account. I never hit LIKE but will respond occasionally. One of these days I am going to have a RIF (reduction in friends) and truly pair it down.
 I like Google+ Communities as a more modern bulletin board system. I think that is where G+ has some relevance vs. Twitter/FB. I did not like the old "people in circles" system.
 Never touched Instragram, Vine, and anything else  similar that I am sure is out there
 I am on Linked In. Its value to me is when people change jobs it keeps me in touch with them.

Overall, I am pretty "meh" with social media. To me Twitter is worst - its as if "a million voices cried all at once...and said nothing meaningful".


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

trappedslider said:


> I find that I can't stand those hyper-vigilant people, to me it's like why do you even brother having a computer that's connected to the net,if you're that worried?
> ..snip..
> Now I picture Janx sitting on a chair yelling at people younger than him "dang nabbit kids get off my lawn with your crazy hair and music" lol




I realize you're joking on the last part, but I think you are mis-interpretting what hyper-vigilant vs. reasonable precautions mean.

Schools are just now starting to teach kids about online safety (not a long lecture) that pretty much covers what I posted here.  It ain't hyper-vigilant, it's basic info security.  One of my many hats at work is Privacy Officer.  I am keenly aware of all the security crap we have to adopt and how retarded our users are in their understanding of the legal and security risks. They complain about strong password enforcement, site blocking, PDF and Zip attachment blocking, yet without them, every week we faced a new virus walking in that Symantec failed to detect in their email or that they'd install off some web page.

Me warning you that "hey, watch where you go and what you post" is mild and actually pretty good advice.  It may come off as strongly worded, but that's because I care, and as I work in IT I am quite a bit more immersed in security concerns than normal people.

The hyper-vigilant are the ones who don't do online banking because they don't trust the security because they know somebody who worked in a bank's IT who said so it was poor.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 4, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> That does make me wonder what everyone's age here, is (or at least the people who've posted answers).



I'll be 48 next month. I've been an active denizen of the online world since the dial-up BBS days, so I'm not an old fuddy-duddy regarding online activity.

I used to be uninterested in texting, but over the past few years, I've come to really like it. 99% of my texting is within my family, but it is a great way to not only send and receive quick/short information, it lets us all feel a little more connection when we are apart. For instance, my wife and I text often throughout the day when I'm at work.

Phone calls actually annoy me, now -- they immediately interrupt what I'm doing.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jun 4, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> Phone calls actually annoy me, now -- they immediately interrupt what I'm doing.




I'm with you there.  Texts are non-intrusive. Phone calls demand your attention - sometimes quite a lot of it!


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

amerigoV said:


> For me its:
> 
> I have been on BBS and email (back in the day it kinda was social media - people spamming out their jokes and such) since before the internet was cool
> Never was on MySpace
> ...




I imagine Twitter is cool for folks to connect with celebrities.  My wife gets Weird Al's tweets.  I just don't see the appeal for "normal" folks to be gathering followers and tweeting out.

LinkedIn seemed like a good idea.  I got on when I was leaving my mega-corp job and got connected with everybody I knew there and such.  It didn't get me a new job (Dice did).  It mostly gets spammed with head hunters, that I don't need to hear from until I need a job (my industry is relatively easy for top talent to find a new job).  The discussion forums are spammed with headhunty crap as well.  Everybody's selling, rather than communicating.  I seldom log in because of signal to noise issues.  LI is where I use my real name, and I want my name associated with good posts, so when I get googled, a prospective employer.


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm with you there.  Texts are non-intrusive. Phone calls demand your attention - sometimes quite a lot of it!




phone calls suck too. 


For me, all this hate of phones, texts, emails, etc are likely tied to my work conditions.  I work from home.  I spend at least 25% of my day on the phone talking to clients or staff.  Another 25% going to online meetings.  And somebody is always trying to get ahold of me, while I am in the middle of talking to somebody else who interrupted me while I was trying to actually get code done.

For me, I have to present a "always ready to help" front, especially to key clients (I literally hang up on my CEO to answer my client).  Ignoring calls from a developer means I have a developer who is stuck and wasting time and money (by the time they're calling me, they've already spend too much time struggling with a problem).

In an ideal world, I would have hours during the day where I don't get reached, I don't see emails, so I can focus on my own work.  Things just don't work that way.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Jun 4, 2015)

I stopped using social media when I started noticing advertisements on Facebook skewed towards my internet search patterns.  Now I hardly log into Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.  I also use Mozilla and privacy add-ons as well as DuckDuckGo for searches.  Call me old fashioned, but I think having faceless companies track my activity is a bit creepy and stalkerish.


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 4, 2015)

Deuce Traveler said:


> I stopped using social media when I started noticing advertisements on Facebook skewed towards my internet search patterns.  Now I hardly log into Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.  I also use Mozilla and privacy add-ons as well as DuckDuckGo for searches.  Call me old fashioned, but I think having faceless companies track my activity is a bit creepy and stalkerish.




It is getting rather scary. I have an older HDTV (Sony with some weird rear projection circa 2006 tech) that lamp just went out. I did a bit of research on replacing it (yea! a $300 lamp 8 years ago now goes for $25 and was easy to swap). At some point just getting oriented I was on Ebay, which I might have an account that I have not logged into in years. Then on FB I noticed something on the right that said "are you still considering buying that TV on EBAY" with a pic of my TV model.

Given some of the stuff I google for gaming purposes, I think I will have to change some thing up


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

amerigoV said:


> It is getting rather scary. I have an older HDTV (Sony with some weird rear projection circa 2006 tech) that lamp just went out. I did a bit of research on replacing it (yea! a $300 lamp 8 years ago now goes for $25 and was easy to swap). At some point just getting oriented I was on Ebay, which I might have an account that I have not logged into in years. Then on FB I noticed something on the right that said "are you still considering buying that TV on EBAY" with a pic of my TV model.
> 
> Given some of the stuff I google for gaming purposes, I think I will have to change some thing up




Yeah, I did the $200 lamp is now $40 fix for my old Sony LCD rear projection as well.. 

Oddly enough, I find the customized advertising less concerning.  Perhaps as a tech guy, to me it's "well, what did you expect" and "duh, it's inherently obvious to associate identity and search patterns to customized preferences for ads."  To me, that's what us programmers do.  We interconnect and use data to get stuff done.  If my job is to show you ads and provide a search engine, I'm gonna use the data to show you more relevant ads.  Technically, that's better than me showing you ads for feminine hygiene products that you don't want to see or ever click on.

I hate ads in general.  But that's because I don't like shopping.  I don't like buying things.  I guess the count has gone up, but for the last 10 years, I could count the number of online purchases I've made on my fingers.  One of my co-workers used to tease me about that.  It's not from paranoia, my credit card had been plugged into my wife's amazon account for ever.  It's just I prefer to be less consumerist.  My bank account also wishes me to be less consumerist.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 4, 2015)

I saw a screenshot of a guy complaining on FB how FB was showing a bunch of advertisements for gay sites/pages/groups/whatever. A friend explained how FB displays ads based on your web searches. Was hilarious.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jun 4, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I saw a screenshot of a guy complaining on FB how FB was showing a bunch of advertisements for gay sites/pages/groups/whatever. A friend explained how FB displays ads based on your web searches. Was hilarious.
> 
> Bullgrit




Same thing happens in the Meta forum here on EN World. Someone will complain about the content of Google ads, not realising only they can see them and they've just announced to the world what they like to search for in private.


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 4, 2015)

Janx said:


> Yeah, I did the $200 lamp is now $40 fix for my old Sony LCD rear projection as well..
> 
> Oddly enough, I find the customized advertising less concerning.  Perhaps as a tech guy, to me it's "well, what did you expect" and "duh, it's inherently obvious to associate identity and search patterns to customized preferences for ads."  To me, that's what us programmers do.  We interconnect and use data to get stuff done.  If my job is to show you ads and provide a search engine, I'm gonna use the data to show you more relevant ads.  Technically, that's better than me showing you ads for feminine hygiene products that you don't want to see or ever click on.
> 
> I hate ads in general.  But that's because I don't like shopping.  I don't like buying things.  I guess the count has gone up, but for the last 10 years, I could count the number of online purchases I've made on my fingers.  One of my co-workers used to tease me about that.  It's not from paranoia, my credit card had been plugged into my wife's amazon account for ever.  It's just I prefer to be less consumerist.  My bank account also wishes me to be less consumerist.




There's a problem with that sort of search 'optimization' though. As a desktop/network tech I end up doing a lot of research on issues. In my non-work life I also do legal, political, and historical research. Google and Yahoo have become all but useless to me because they first show me sites they think might be able to sell me stuff related to my non purchase related research and then a series of links that are tied to what they think I'm looking for, based on previous searches, when I'm looking for something unlreated to any of my previous searches.

On you previous post stating "it doesn't work that way", that's because of us. We've allowed things to progress to the point where cell phones, texting, and email have made employers believe that we are available to them 24/7/365. I'm off work today and that means I'm off work today. My work cell is sitting in my desk drawer at work, I won't be checking my work email (unlike many of my co-workers I still maintain separate email accounts), and my voicemail is set to a vacation alert message (that many people will ignore to leave an immediate message).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I acknowledge that this leads into politics, but I admit to being curious about which cases you mean.



Briefly and sketchily presented:

There are some cases floating around the USA that are addressing the issue of whether the way ISP providers handle the emails entrusted to them violates privacy rights, especially and most importantly, the various legal privilege rights: doctor-patient  priest-penitent, lawyer-client, etc.

Because the ISP providers have designed their programs to peek into your emails to look for keywords in order to help target advertising.  It is one way in which they keep your email service "free".  They argue this is a good thing, and no humans ever see the data in question.  Others argue this "peeking" violates privacy and privilege, and that their correspondence transmission service should be legally considered the same as the post office or phone companies' business models.

If the latter position- which I agree with- wins out in courts, it will mean an increase in prices because they can't "peek" into your data anymore.  At the very least, anyone wanting to communicate privately and/or with privilege will have to use a communication service that is not free, as opposed to one with this offset due to targeted advertising.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Same thing happens in the Meta forum here on EN World. Someone will complain about the content of Google ads, not realising only they can see them and they've just announced to the world what they like to search for in private.



I know it doesn't work 100% based on that, because I get ads for stuff I have ZERO clue about.  I recently had a rash of ads in Spanish...a language I don't speak. Not THAT well, anyway.  Even my emails don't mention that language much.

I tried to explain the email "peeking" thing to my mom years ago, but I gave up.  So every once in a while, I get a rash of political advertising that largely reflects her biases...including, unfortunately, stuff from really vile sites that espouse ultra-right wing/racist stuff.

Not that she's racist or ultra right-wing- it's just that she sees these teasers for stories that fit her inarticulated inner narrative against certain politicians and she clicks on them and sends them to me.  Which then leads me to spending time illustrating WHO those views are coming from and how there been debunked...or at least thoroghly criticized with facts.

It's pretty thankless, but I do it for my own sanity, mainly.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If the latter position- which I agree with- wins out in courts, it will mean an increase in prices because they can't "peek" into your data anymore.  At the very least, anyone wanting to communicate privately and/or with privilege will have to use a communication service that is not free, as opposed to one with this offset due to targeted advertising.




Ah. I could see, at the least, that any carrier who wanted to peek would have to pretty visibly enable some form of encryption (PGP, or the like) so the end user can make it so they cannot peek.

Or, more simply, folks start having to pay google a few bucks for gmail...


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 4, 2015)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Same thing happens in the Meta forum here on EN World. Someone will complain about the content of Google ads, not realising only they can see them and they've just announced to the world what they like to search for in private.



It's kind of funny how we (online humanity) makes this embarrassing when it really shouldn't be.

I know I have searched/researched some very odd things that would be very embarrassing if taken out of context. For instance, I'm sure I've looked up gay or other "embarrassing"* information at one time or another. I have no doubt that a complete history of my open (not incognito mode  internet usage would reveal some very strange stuff. I know everyone -- including *gasp* my wife and my mother -- have gone to some weird web sites either out of curiosity or for serious research or completely by accident. But I also know that everyone would chuckle at finding out that I or anyone else had visited embarrassing pages.

And there are plenty of non-embarrassing pages that an ad algorithm can match with an embarrassing ad to display. I once was getting dating site ads for a week because I had read a single blog post by a woman whose main blog topic was dating. The post I read was about a hotel near Disney World, and nothing on that page had anything to do with dating. But the ads picked up info from the overall blog code and so assumed I was interested in online dating.

Bullgrit

* Gay is not embarrassing on the face of it**, but you know what I mean.

** Phrasing!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 4, 2015)

We struggle with the privacy issue. The next generation has a different expectation of and view of privacy. The generation after that probably won't have any expectation of it at all.

Along with that, of course, will be vastly less embarrassment or shame at activities when everyone can see everyone does it. Same old, same old.

We find that idea horrific. Our grandparents probably found some of our ideas horrific. 

Peoples' views on these things change, and that's OK. The 40-something crowd always has been and always will be alienated by many things the kids take for granted.


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Briefly and sketchily presented:
> 
> There are some cases floating around the USA that are addressing the issue of whether the way ISP providers handle the emails entrusted to them violates privacy rights, especially and most importantly, the various legal privilege rights: doctor-patient  priest-penitent, lawyer-client, etc.
> 
> ...




This issue hits me from the opposite side in my line of work.  I deal with a lot of clients who tend to form networks of providers.  Many of those providers are small practices using yahoo or some other free email service and have no IT staff to speak of.

HIPAA requires online communication to be encrypted in transit.  SSL for web sites is trivial. Email is the ugly duckling.  If you don't set up TLS on your email server and confirm TLS is setup on the destination, then HIPAA say you can't email those medical records because the data is not encrypted in transit.  Yahoo and Google are adding TLS, but prior to last year for sure, none of these populat free email sites had TLS and thus everybody using them for medical work was violating HIPAA.

Furthermore, HIPAA requires Business Associate Agreements with the entities you transfer data with.  To get a BAA means reviewing the other guy's security and signing paper that you accept their good or crappy level of security.  In the instances where a BAA is not literally required, the same level of dilligence is expected, even without a formal BAA.  Thus, when you put your medical records onto gmail, you put Google at risk of violating HIPAA because they didn't specifically know you were using them for that (and thus setup controls to better protect that data).

So from my vantage point, court cases aside, these users had no business using Gmail or Yahoo because they were invoking an unwitting 3rd party into handling Protected Health Information (PHI).  Thus, it was never an issue about the snooping by google's bots, because it was inappropriate to run your medical business through an email system you didn't control or have contracts with.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

> I know I have searched/researched some very odd things that would be very embarrassing if taken out of context.




I have researched homosexuality, poisons, bombs, melee weapons, hate groups, alcohol, political candidates, religious fringe groups, mainstream religions, countries, conspiracy theories, rare flora & fauna, bible passages, Sci-Fi/fantasy/horror fiction, guitars  amps, pedals, laws of many jurisdictions, music of all genres...and so much more.

Anyone trying to take my search history and making a coherent picture of me for investigative or advertising purposes is in for a real struggle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Janx said:


> This issue hits me from the opposite side in my line of work.  I deal with a lot of clients who tend to form networks of providers.  Many of those providers are small practices using yahoo or some other free email service and have no IT staff to speak of.
> 
> HIPAA requires online communication to be encrypted in transit.  SSL for web sites is trivial. Email is the ugly duckling.  If you don't set up TLS on your email server and confirm TLS is setup on the destination, then HIPAA say you can't email those medical records because the data is not encrypted in transit.  Yahoo and Google are adding TLS, but prior to last year for sure, none of these populat free email sites had TLS and thus everybody using them for medical work was violating HIPAA.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I'm familiar with HIPPA issues- had to research it for my Dad's medical practice.  

The thing is, it isn't just from the practitioner's side that we have concerns.  If the patient somehow sends you an email that isn't secured or encrypted, and it reveals otherwise private/privileged info, the issue arises.

And as you well know, most people don't have secure or encrypted accounts.

That means an email from a patient or potential patient using a gmail account may legally be no more protected by privilege than talking to a doctor face to face with the building janitor sitting in the room.


----------



## Janx (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeah, I'm familiar with HIPPA issues- had to research it for my Dad's medical practice.
> 
> The thing is, it isn't just from the practitioner's side that we have concerns.  If the patient somehow sends you an email that isn't secured or encrypted, and it reveals otherwise private/privileged info, the issue arises.
> 
> And as you well know, most people don't have secure or encrypted accounts.




At least if the patient sends it do you, he is the one who effectively opted in to disclose it. 

For systems we build, we don't conduct business with external parties over email,  We'll send them a notification that medical records were added to a case with a link to log back in and open that case.  Putting strict attachment size limits also cut down on adjustors emailing in medical records.  that was another crazy thing.  pick an insurance company you've seen a commerical for.  Odds are good one of their adjustors is emailing medical records or using IE6 on an XP machine to an FTP (not SFTP) site.  If I knew where the facepalm icon was, I'd put one here.


I imagine all this HIPAA/tech talk is boring to folks.  It's just something I had to learn when I switched to writing apps for the medical/insurance industry.  Which in turn led to me being the guy who had to write down the rules for my company so we could establish that we had rules and followed them so we could do business with clients.  Which in turn apparently poisoned me against all forms of communication and kids walking on my lawn.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Janx said:


> At least if the patient sends it do you, he is the one who effectively opted in to disclose it.




Oh yeah- the doctor (or lawyer or priest, etc.) is in the clear, but the damage is still done.

It's actually worse for lawyers: it becomes next to impossible to communicate with a client without using the phone, regular mail or face to face without potentially violating the privilege.  Again, it would be mostly the client's actions that void the privilege, but that reeeeealy slows stuff down and increases inconvenience.  And if the rulings in these cases- or some kind of legislation- don't protect communications prior to the decisions, all of a sudden, huge amounts of data suddenly become discoverable.

That is a nightmare.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have researched homosexuality, poisons, bombs, melee weapons, hate groups, alcohol, political candidates, religious fringe groups, mainstream religions, countries, conspiracy theories, rare flora & fauna, bible passages, Sci-Fi/fantasy/horror fiction, guitars  amps, pedals, laws of many jurisdictions, music of all genres...and so much more.
> 
> Anyone trying to take my search history and making a coherent picture of me for investigative or advertising purposes is in for a real struggle.




You should see some of the stuff you research when writing an RPG!  Google has a very confused picture of me!


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 4, 2015)

Janx said:


> The hyper-vigilant are the ones who don't do online banking because they don't trust the security . . . .




That would be me. I am 52.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> You should see some of the stuff you research when writing an RPG!  Google has a very confused picture of me!




Right there wit'cha!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's actually worse for lawyers: it becomes next to impossible to communicate with a client without using the phone, regular mail or face to face without potentially violating the privilege.




And there are times this gets annoying, because it gets in the way of quite simple progress.

My wife is a veterinarian, and, whether they are legally required to or not, they keep HIPAA in mind.

Sometimes, a vet will get faxed records from another vet.  A modern fax/scanner/printer usually has "receive fax to e-mail" or "receive fax to file" functionality, which would mean the doctor receiving could automatically take the information into electronic records, like you'd want them to in the 21st century, without ever having to use up ink or kill trees.  Except that e-mail channel is not encrypted.  You can't even send it to yourself!


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 4, 2015)

I guess you don't want every one in the world to know if a prized breeding stallion to know that there is something worng for even a short period of time. Internet connections only leave a wide open door for abuse.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> I guess you don't want every one in the world to know if a prized breeding stallion to know that there is something worng for even a short period of time. Internet connections only leave a wide open door for abuse.




That, sure.  But not many vets deal with terribly valuable animals, to be honest.

Of greater concern might be... oh, say... a divorce case, with child custody involved (so, people willing to be ugly).  Now, imagine how records about animal care might be used in the courtroom.  "You missed Fluffy's annual checkup several times.  If you can't manage to keep your dog healthy, how are you going to manage a child?"  Or even, "You spent $3K on pet care.  So, clearly you can afford $X in child support...."

And let's not even entertain what happens with anything that could be interpreted by an uninvolved third party as possible abuse....

Health and care are very touchy things, into which people are willing to read a lot of moral character. This is why, even if they are not legally required to follow all of HIPAA because the patients are not human, vets generally follow the same ethics - also because I think many aspects of HIPPA have never been applied to vets, and nobody wants to be part of case law


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 4, 2015)

Yep and yep.


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 4, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I have researched homosexuality, poisons, bombs, melee weapons, hate groups, alcohol, political candidates, religious fringe groups, mainstream religions, countries, conspiracy theories, rare flora & fauna, bible passages, Sci-Fi/fantasy/horror fiction, guitars  amps, pedals, laws of many jurisdictions, music of all genres...and so much more.
> 
> Anyone trying to take my search history and making a coherent picture of me for investigative or advertising purposes is in for a real struggle.




Reminds me of the time when d20 modern came,and WotC had a forum for it,that was allowed to discuss some stuff that violated the CoC..so many discussions we used to joke that in the FBI there was one guy whose sole job was watching the forum lol


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2015)

How do you violate the Call of C'thulhu?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How do you violate the Call of C'thulhu?




no, no. Its the chamber of commerce.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2015)

From YouTube (one of the vanishingly small number of social media outlets I use regularly) comes Corrosion of Conformity- my favorite CoC.   Though they're more likely to violate you than the other way 'round.

[video=youtube;rKPicUnsPPg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPicUnsPPg&sns=em[/video]

[video=youtube;yvsQsao1F88]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvsQsao1F88&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 5, 2015)

Coincidentally, one of my coworkers has invited our team to an online gaming night. He set up a group on Steam and invited (through work email) us all to join. I thought it would be fun, so I joined.

Now, I've only used Steam for downloading the occasional (once a year or so) game, never for any kind of social connection. But joining this group, I see that Steam shows, in my profile, exactly what games I have played, the last time I played, and the exact number of hours I've played. Holy crap! Really? I have negative interest in showing what games I play and how much I play them. 

This is what peeves me with modern connectivity -- it assumes that I want everything I do shared via built-in social connections. I only needed Steam to download a couple of games, but Steam is a full social media platform -- and I didn't know this until now. Grrrr.

One day, I guess, whenever you go in for a colonoscopy, the endoscope will automatically update your social media with the pics of your polyps. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Ryujin (Jun 5, 2015)

Janx said:


> I realize you're joking on the last part, but I think you are mis-interpretting what hyper-vigilant vs. reasonable precautions mean.
> 
> Schools are just now starting to teach kids about online safety (not a long lecture) that pretty much covers what I posted here.  It ain't hyper-vigilant, it's basic info security.  One of my many hats at work is Privacy Officer.  I am keenly aware of all the security crap we have to adopt and how retarded our users are in their understanding of the legal and security risks. They complain about strong password enforcement, site blocking, PDF and Zip attachment blocking, yet without them, every week we faced a new virus walking in that Symantec failed to detect in their email or that they'd install off some web page.
> 
> ...




Not necessarily. Some of the 'hyper vigilant' are people who do user support and realize just how vulnerable the _client side_ is.


----------



## Janx (Jun 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And there are times this gets annoying, because it gets in the way of quite simple progress.
> 
> My wife is a veterinarian, and, whether they are legally required to or not, they keep HIPAA in mind.
> 
> Sometimes, a vet will get faxed records from another vet.  A modern fax/scanner/printer usually has "receive fax to e-mail" or "receive fax to file" functionality, which would mean the doctor receiving could automatically take the information into electronic records, like you'd want them to in the 21st century, without ever having to use up ink or kill trees.  Except that e-mail channel is not encrypted.  You can't even send it to yourself!




well, that's not entirely correct.

If the fax/scanner/copier is inside your premises on your network, it has an in-house connection to your network, and thus can transmit the fax to a file share or email box on YOUR server (because it never left your digital facility).

We use that trick all the time to round up faxes and feed them into apps.

What you can't do is cross the digital divide to another party without encryption.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2015)

Interesting note on social media: apparently someone in ISIS took a selfie near one of their headquarters and posted it online...and because that website/account was being monitored, that location was hit 22 hours later.

So, remember, kiddies- people really DO read what you post, and what you post online can have real-world repercussions.

This is ESPECIALLY true if you're in some kind of high-profile demographic- wealthy, celebrities, athletes, working in sensitive fields (security, military, high tech, etc.), and yes, terrorists- because you're more likely to be targeted by malfeasors than the average joe.  Risk/reward for the black hat set, y'know?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 5, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Risk/reward for the arse hat set, y'know?



FIFY


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2015)

Janx said:


> If the fax/scanner/copier is inside your premises on your network, it has an in-house connection to your network, and thus can transmit the fax to a file share or email box on YOUR server (because it never left your digital facility).




Veterinary clinics don't generally their own e-mail servers.  They are almost always using some third party, hosted offsite.  I've known a couple large and savvy enough to have some machine always on to receive files on premises, but many aren't.  Doctors for humans have larger budgets, typically, and are more likely to be able to manage such.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 6, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Veterinary clinics don't generally their own e-mail servers.  They are almost always using some third party, hosted offsite.  I've known a couple large and savvy enough to have some machine always on to receive files on premises, but many aren't.  Doctors for humans have larger budgets, typically, and are more likely to be able to manage such.



And having a HIPPA compliant 3rd party server is very expensive as the security, constant vigilance and complacency audits are highly expensive.

My brother is part of a business that takes HIPPA protected information and direct print to postal processes that information. He and I have discussed his headaches on this matter. His company is required audits every 90 days, I think, and they, his company, gets audited in a shorter interval then that, just to make sure they are compliant - purely for the sake of their clients and by extension, their clients.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 7, 2015)

I consider what has been dubbed as "social media" as utterly irrelevant and pointless. I've asked others for explanations, and no one has given me one that leads me to consider them worth my time or effort.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> My brother is part of a business that takes HIPPA protected information and direct print to postal processes that information. He and I have discussed his headaches on this matter.




Someone I know was in a car accident that led to medical complications.  There was a call to get medical records sent from a hospital to an insurance company.

The process took *a month*.  An entire month to process a patient's request to have records sent from Point A in Massachusetts to Point B in Massachusetts.  I think the records had to be printed... in Georgia or North Carolina.  It was absurd.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 7, 2015)

At the VA I  spent the 6 week Induced coma I was able to have the records printed right there at that VA. Any hospital system should be able and needs to do this kind of quick efficiency. I only needed mine to file for disability.

Edit: As a side note, I hand carried the 1000 + pages of data. That was quite a feat in my greatly weakened state. I was so afraid I would injure my intestines or leak out of my colostomy bag or some other form of scary injury/occurrence.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The process took *a month*.  An entire month to process a patient's request to have records sent from Point A in Massachusetts to Point B in Massachusetts.  I think the records had to be printed... in Georgia or North Carolina.  It was absurd.



There are a lot of absurd inefficiencies in the American medical system, from a lot of different causes:

1) InsCo procedures that cause them to question payment for established routine treatments they had previously approved...usually a cyclical behavior
2) InsCo procedures that cause them to send out physical checks for amounts so small- as little as $0.01- it costs the InsCo, bank, postal service, and doctor EACH more to process than the check is worth.
3) InsCo procedures that cause them to pay out frivolous malpractice claims and cap coverage for defending against legitimate claims
4) Lawyers who have mastered the art of the frivolous claim
5) Health care providers' overcompetition for patients leading to overinvestment in equipment or physical plant, as well as improper billing practices
6) State-level as opposed to national regulation & licensing of health care professionals and InsCos.

All of these- and more- lead to very real economic costs measurable in dollars spent, man-hours lost, and even more serious negative patient outcomes.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jun 7, 2015)

Just joining the thread for the first time... I use both FB and G+, but I use them professionally. My FB account does have some Kickstarter backers as friends , but the majority of friends are only RPG publishers, freelance authors, artists, and cartographers (about 350). Though I've been using FB longer than G+, I get a lot more traffic, have a lot more "friends" on my G+ account. I've joined every RPG cartographer community on G+ and religiously post maps, like I do here, and any person that +'d a map of mine, I invited as a friend. Though I have a little over 3000 friends on G+ account, my profile page (only 2 years old) has almost 5 million views. And lots of publishers needing map commissions have found me via FB or G+ (more luck on G+ though). I don't twitter or any other social media nonsense.

I check both my FB and G+ pages several times a day, and answer any questions queried of me, but its hardly different than checking one's email. I don't spend too much time with my social media, aside from posting product links or map samples. Again, I'm not a social media junkie though. I find it useful for my promotional needs, better than a lot of my other online participation.

And to the second part of the OP, I use my real name for both accounts, of passwords, I don't discuss that with anyone.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2015)

Scott DeWar said:


> At the VA I  spent the 6 week Induced coma I was able to have the records printed right there at that VA.




As an anti-fraud measure, in the case of a car accident, the victim cannot deliver their own records to the insurance company.  The victim's hands can't touch the records, lest they be tampered with to make the accident injuries look worse than they actually were.


----------



## Janx (Jun 7, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Veterinary clinics don't generally their own e-mail servers.  They are almost always using some third party, hosted offsite.  I've known a couple large and savvy enough to have some machine always on to receive files on premises, but many aren't.  Doctors for humans have larger budgets, typically, and are more likely to be able to manage such.




That would be the scenario of small practices I was talking about earlier.  Similar industry problem.  Even doctor offices and such suffer from it.  Only the bigger shops can really afford a decent IT budget to set that up.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 6) State-level as opposed to national regulation & licensing of health care professionals and InsCos.




Yah, try this one.  Some clinics my wife works with are near the MA/NH border.  Every once in a while, they would like to do house calls.

Now, you might expect, a doctor needs to have a licence to practice medicine in both states.  That's fine, as those licenses also cover whether the doctor has knowledge of various State laws.  And, you might expect that they need a Federal license to dispense controlled substances.  Also fine.

But, they need a Federal License to dispense controlled substances *for each state, separately*.  So, a Federal license for MA, and another Federal license for HN.  Which makes no sense, as it is a *Federal* license.  And these licenses are not cheap, so that if you don't do enough work in a state, it stops being worth keeping up the license.

Oh, and the facility must keep separate inventories of controlled substances for each state they serve, and do accounting for them separately.  So, separate locked safes, with separate keys, separate inventory logs, separate bookkeeping and auditing.  Heaven forbid that a Schnauzer in Manchester, NH gets needed pain meds that were bought for patients in MA!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2015)

Yep.

My dad was- for several decades- licensed in Louisiana.  As an Army physician, he was allowed to practice anywhere coved by USA law.  When he retired from the military to launch a private practice in Texas, he had to get a Texas license, and he didn't let his LA license lapse.  So for many years, he went through some of what you describe.  Eventually, he let his LA license lapse, though.  He mainly had it for the convenience of being able to help family & friends in that state, and post-Katrina, most had moved away from there.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> As an anti-fraud measure, in the case of a car accident, the victim cannot deliver their own records to the insurance company.  The victim's hands can't touch the records, lest they be tampered with to make the accident injuries look worse than they actually were.




That makes perfect sense to me. I was just trying to get disability and that does not apply to what I did, I guess. My Lawyer was quite appreciative of my actions.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jun 8, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are a lot of absurd inefficiencies in the American medical system, from a lot of different causes:
> 
> 1)* InsCon* procedures that cause them to question payment for established routine treatments they had previously approved...usually a cyclical behavior
> 2)_ InsCon_ procedures that cause them to send out physical checks for amounts so small- as little as $0.01- it costs the *InsCon*, bank, postal service, and doctor EACH more to process than the check is worth.
> ...




I fixed it for you Danny


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2015)

Hehe.

I have a love-hate relationship with insurance companies.  Good ones- or more accurately- good policies- can be a godsend.  And of course, being improperly insured can be a nightmare.

Last year, a friend of ours lost her sister-in-law to a single-car accident.  She fell asleep at the wheel  crashed, was airlifted to the hospital and didn't make it.  The family later found out that the care flight air-ambulance service was NOT covered by insurance, and cost $15k.  Apparently, most insurance companies doesn't cover that kind of service- it is usually only available directly from the service providers, for something like $50-100/year.  There are 2 companies that provide air-evac in Dallas, so that would be $100-200 per annum.

Now, the odds of you NEEDING that service are slim.  But $15k is a big financial hit for most families. ESPECIALLY when the person needing the service is a breadwinner.  (For the record, _our_ family is still debating the value of said insurance.)

My main problem with InsCos comes from the games they play, both with customers and service providers.  I was reviewing a HMO or PPO contract for my Dad a few years ago- they had all the statutory language about how they would process patient claims within X period of time, etc.  However, there was NO clause stating when a claim would be paid after it was approved.  IOW, by the terms of the contract, they could process and approve the claim, and drag their heels indefinitely on actually paying him for services rendered.  I told him to sign it only if he got an express payment clause included.

There's also the issue of how they interfere with actual patient care by their approval or non-approval of treatments, down to specific brands of medications.  My Mom is unusually sensitive to the additives in pharmaceuticals.  Her InsCo insisted she be switched her from a name-brand to a generic of a particular med....and she experienced side effects that made the doctors think she had Lou Gherig's disease.  It took months of fighting for her MDs to convince the InsCo that their bottom-line bean-counting was killing their patient.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 11, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> What is your relationship with online social media? Are you all in all the time with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, discussion forums, etc.? Or are you a social media hermit?



Currently, I'm a social media hermit. I used to have an account in a national social network but since it's been killed by Facebook I'm nowhere to be found - excepting a bunch of fora.

Oh, and I have dozens of online accounts...


----------



## Kaodi (Jun 11, 2015)

I am 31 and I do not trust online banking. Hell, I do not even trust depositing cash into a bank machine.

I use Twitter every day, by way of their Tweetdeck app. I am much into politics and such, and I follow a tonne of journalists. I also follow a lot of celebrities though. I find Internet celebrities tend to post the most and talk with people the most, which makes sense. And then you get some guys like Bill Shatner who do not know the meaning of the word "spoiler" . That guy is a big TV buff these days. There might be some narcissism involved, but at the end of the day you are just talking to other people. I assume all of you that pooh-pooh such frivolities are not all anti-social introverts, no matter the stereotype of gamers.


----------

