Cambridge University researchers are predicting that April Fools’ Day 2010 will be the first time that online pranks outnumber pranks in the so-called real world.
“We’re expecting to see 3,258,987 fake stories on the English-speaking worldwide web this April first,” Dr. Theodore Chiste. This will nearly than double the former record established on April 1, 1930, two months after the Whoopee Cushion was first released.
Dr. Chiste believes the most popular fake stories this year will involve Google, Facebook and/or Justin Bieber.
Who are we kidding?
As Paul Boutin wrote in the New York Times, “On the Internet, every day is April Fools’ Day.” The Onion has become one of the most popular sites in the world by turning fake stories into works of art.
To celebrate the Internet’s favorite holiday here three of our favorite April Fools’ pranks:
1. The great Rickroll of 2008.
YouTube linked every video on its homepage to Rick Astley singing the most popular song of all time “Never Going to Give You Up.” The F-Secure Labs today announced our new product to protect against Rickroll, the F-Secure Rickroll Protector.
2. Sign o’ the times.
In 1980, the BBC reported that Big Ben was going digital. One in a fine tradition of BBC pranks.
3. But seriously, folks.
F-Secure introduces a new Internet security product featuring children’s story character Moomin. The best part? It was a real product released on April 1, 2005 but it was taken as a prank.
Did you have any favorite April Fools’ this year?
Hetta and Jason
Everybody probably agree that the net has developed a discussion culture very different from what we are used to in real life. The used adjectives vary form inspiring, free and unrestricted to crazy, sick and shocking. The (apparent) anonymity when discussing on-line leads to more open and frank opinions, which is both good and bad. It becomes especially bad when it turns into libel and hate speech. What do you think about this? Read on and let us know in the poll below. We do have laws to protect us against defamation. But the police still has a very varying ability to deal with crimes on the net. And the global nature of Internet makes investigations harder. Most cases are international, at least here in Europe where we to a large extent rely on US-based services. This is in the headlines right now here in Finland because of a recent case. The original coverage is in Finnish so I will give you a short summary in English. A journalist named Sari Helin blogged about equal rights for sexual minorities, and how children are very natural and doesn’t react anyway if a friend has two mothers, for example. This is a sensitive topic and, hardly surprising, she got a lot of negative feedback. Part of the feedback was clear defamation. Calling her a whore, among other nasty things. She considered it for a while and finally decided to report the case to the police, mainly because of Facebook comments. This is where the really interesting part begins. Recently the prosecutor released the decision about the case. They simply decided to drop it and not even try to investigate. The reason? Facebook is in US and it would be too much work contacting the authorities over there for this rather small crime. A separately interviewed police officer also stated that many of the requests that are sent abroad remain unanswered, probably for the same reason. This reflects the situation in Finland, but I guess there are a lot of other countries where the same could have happened. Is this OK? The resourcing argument is understandable. The authorities have plenty of more severe crimes to deal with. But accepting this means that law and reality drift even further apart. Something is illegal but everybody knows you will get away with the crime. That’s not good. Should we increase resourcing and work hard to make international investigations smoother? That’s really the only way to make the current laws enforceable. The other possible path is to alter our mindset about Internet discussions. If I write something pro-gay on the net, I know there’s a lot of people who dislike it and think bad things about me. Does it really change anything if some of these people write down their thoughts and comment on my writings? No, not really. But most people still feel insulted in cases like this. I think we slowly are getting used to the different discussion climate on the net. We realize that some kinds of writing will get negative feedback. We are prepared for that and can ignore libel without factual content. We value feedback from reputable persons, and anonymous submissions naturally have less significance. Pure emotional venting without factual content can just be ignored and is more shameful for the writer than for the object. Well, we are still far from that mindset, even if we are moving towards it. But which way should we go? Should we work hard to enforce the current law and prosecute anonymous defamers? Or should we adopt our mindset to the new discussion culture? The world is never black & white and there will naturally be development on both these fronts. But in which direction would you steer the development if you could decide? Now you have to pick the one you think is more important. [polldaddy poll=8293148] Looking forward to see what you think. The poll will be open for a while and is closed when we have enough data. Safe surfing, Micke
We all know that there are scammers on the net, actually a lot of them. The common forms of scams are already well known, Nigerian letters and advance payment scams for example. But scammers do develop their methods to fool more people. I recently saw a warning about an interesting variant where the scammers ask for advance payments for travel services. This warning involved booking.com so you should be extra careful if you have used them recently. But the advices I share here are generic and not specific to booking.com anyway. The warning I refer to is in Swedish but I’ll provide the main points here in English. Here’s what happened according to the story. Someone books a trip on-line. Booking information leaks out to scammers somehow. This could be because of a hacking incident at booking.com, a crooked employee or maybe also through a hacked customer mail account. Now the scammers contact the customer. They claim to be the hotel and require advance payment for the stay. This can be quite convincing as they know what hotel has been booked and at what dates. The payment must be a wire transfer, credit cards are not accepted. Sadly, some customers fall for this and do the payment. They never see the money again and still have to pay the full price for the hotel. Here the key differentiator from ordinary scams is that the scammers have info about a valid purchase done by the customer. This enables them to be very convincing and impersonate the hotel (or some other provider of services) in a believable way. Fortunately it is quite easy to defeat this, and many other scam attempts, with some simple rules. Always pay your on-line purchases with a credit card. Period. If this isn’t possible, shop somewhere else instead. The credit card company acts as a buffer between you and the recipient of the payment, and adds a significant amount of security. Never use wire transfers of money. Period. This is the standard method for scammers as it is next to impossible to get transactions reversed. If someone claims that no other method is available, it is a very strong signal that something is wrong. If you have selected to pay by credit card, as you always should do, then it is a strong warning signal if someone tries to deviate from that and ask for money using some other payment method. Remember that it is next to impossible to verify the identity of the other part if someone contacts you. If you get contacted like this and have any kind of doubts, you can always contact the company you bought from to verify if they really have contacted you. The risk with credit cards is that your card number may be shared with several companies, like airline, car rental and the hotel, in the case of travel booking. Each of these may charge your card. Incorrect charges may occur either by mistake or deliberately. Always check your credit card bill carefully and complain about unauthorized charges. This is some extra work, but the customer will usually get unauthorized charges corrected. And a last hint not really related to scammers. Be careful with the grand total of your on-line purchase. Travel bookers are notorious for not showing the real grand total until at a very late stage in the purchase process. It is very easy to make price comparisons on figures that aren’t comparable. If possible, prefer honest sites that show you the real price upfront. Memorize these rules and the likelihood that you will be scammed is very small. The best way to fight scam is to not take the bait. So by being careful you not only save your own money, you also participate in fighting this form of crime as you make it less profitable. If you want to do even more, share the info and help others become aware. If you liked this post, you may also like the story about when I sold my boat. Safe surfing, Micke PS. The story I base this on was seen on Facebook. It is not verified, but I find it to be believable. It doesn’t really matter anyway if the story is true or not. The story is plausible and forms an excellent warning about Internet scams, which unfortunately is a widespread and very real form of crime. Image by Ho John Lee
You have all seen the pictures circulating on the net. A bunch of people all tapping at their smartphones and paying no attention to the world around them. With the title: ANTISOCIAL. And you have probably also seen this is real life. Sometimes a friend just seems to be more interested in the phone than in you. And maybe it has been the other way around sometime? ;) Most of these people are probably using social media. I do agree that it is rude to ignore persons who are physically present and pay more attention to the phone. Especially if you are alone with someone. And yes, that behavior seems antisocial from other’s point of view. But the funny thing is really that social media and our mobile devices form the most social system invented so far. Think about it. You can be in contact with people everywhere in the world. You can send and receive messages instantly and follow what others do right now. You can share your own feelings spontaneously. You can have a pure peer-to-peer exchange of thoughts not curated by any outsiders. You can select to communicate with a single person or a larger group. You are not limited to written text, you can use pictures and video as well. The real point here is that those “antisocial” types aren’t just tapping their phones, they are communicating with real people. Our traditional definition for the word social was formed before we had Internet. People associate it with personal face-to-face contact and are slow to update their mindsets. Or to be precise, we already have a younger generation who have grown up with the net and social media services. Their definition is up to date, but many of us older persons still see the net as less social or not social at all. Let’s all agree to never call someone who is concentrating on the phone antisocial. But the word rude may be justified. Let’s also agree to not be rude against others by ignoring them in favor of the phone. It’s of course OK to check the phone now and then at the party, but always prioritize people who are present and want to talk to you. And why not take it one step further? Turn off the phone and try to be without it for a couple of hours. Can you do it? Next time you go out for dinner with someone is a good time for that experiment. You may be less social on the net for a while, but your company will see you as much more social. Safe surfing, Micke PS. If you must be able to take urgent calls and can’t turn off the phone, at least turn off the data connection. That will mute the social media apps.