he-has-cancer

Share this with all your friends and make Facebook a better place

he-has-cancerHelp a sick child with cancer. Help us raise funds for this poor boy beaten by his stepfather. Learn how to help yourself if you have a heart attack and nobody is around. Isn’t Facebook a fantastic place, you can learn so much and get involved in things that matter through posts that your friends pass around. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. We have all seen these posts that circulate on Facebook and other communities.

What do you think about them? Do you pass them on? Does this kind of messages play on your emotions? Do you like the feeling of helping a poor child somewhere in the word by clicking share? Have you ever tried to verify if the sad story is true? Or do you want to hold on to the dream that you are helping, and avoid checking the background even if there is a grain of doubt? Or are you one of the skeptics who dislike chain letters and write an angry reply instead?

Chain letter may be an old-fashion term from the snail-mail era. But that is really what we are talking about here. They are also called hoaxes, which refer to the content rather than the spreading mechanism. Our modern communities on the net provide an ideal environment for them. It has never before been so easy to share information with a large number of friends globally, just by a click. The content might be anything, but there are some easy ways to identify them.

  • They play on your emotions, often empathy or fear.
  • They tell you to share it with all your friends.
  • There’s often a shocking picture of a claimed victim. (The same picture is often reused in many different chain letters.)
  • It may claim that the victim gets money for each share. (This is never true.)
  • There’s no or very little details of the claimed victim to make it harder to debunk the story.
  • There’s no reference to news articles or other reliable sources, or the article is fake if there is one.

Here comes a couple of examples from different categories.

Help save baby with cancer is a really classical example. Who can resist a sick child? And that thing on the little boy’s face. OMG! In reality, this story is just made up and the boy doesn’t exist. Or the baby in the picture certainly exists, but he has appeared in many different chain letters and nobody knows where the picture comes from or if that thing is fake or real. The promise of one dollar per share is also just made up, there is no such commitment in reality.

YOU COULD SAVE A LOVED ONES LIFE BY KNOWING THIS SIMPLE INFORMATION!!! First aid and medical advice is another common chain letter category. I have attended a number of first aid courses at different levels, and this example is legit as far as I can tell. The described STR-rule is also well known and used elsewhere too. But how do you know that? If you can assess that, you don’t need the advice. And if you can’t, you have no clue if the advice is reliable and accurate. This one might be legit, but that can’t be said about all the other messages of this kind. They can in the worst case be directly harmful! (I have selected to not share one of those here.)

Facebook is not a good info source for matters of life and death. If you truly care about your loved ones and want to be able to help, then there is no substitute for professional first aid training. Trash all chain letters of this kind and sign up for a course today!

[Insert celebrity of your choice] found dead at Dominican Republic resort. This is really a sick form of humor. There’s a web-based generator that can generate hoaxes like this. It even creates fake news pages that can be passed around with the chain letter. I’m including the link to the generator here. I trust that you use it only to learn how to spot these hoaxes, not to make one yourself.

If you see some shocking news like this and the source isn’t one of the big news networks that you recognize, then turn to Google and get a second opinion before you hit share. Well, sites can be faked so Google is a good idea even if you recognize the news source.

But these chain letters are mostly harmless, you might think. Is it really that bad to pass one on? Well, they don’t harm the reader directly. Messages that trick you into downloading a file or opening a site that can contain malware is a different cup of tea. Phishing scams that trick you into entering secret data at a faked site are also truly harmful. Chain letters and hoaxes are not harmful in this way.

But that’s not the full story. There are still several reasons to avoid them:

  • Your own reputation. You may feel good when “helping a sick child”, but do your friends think the same way? Some of them may think you are gullible and easily fooled.
  • You create unnecessary noise on Facebook, or whatever community you are on. It may already be hard enough to spot the relevant posts from 500+ friends and a load of groups. Your friends do not need more junk to cover the valuable posts.
  • Things seem to replicate, especially problems. If you have a habit of sharing chain letters and hoaxes, you contribute to the culture among your friends. You signal that it is OK to share hoaxes and your habit will spread to some of them.
  • If you forward a message with some advice about first aid, a friend uses it and it tunes out to be bad advice. How would you feel? If you share info like this, you also carry responsibility for it.
  • Passing on jokes about someone killed in an accident is really sick humor, even if you might be in shock and believe it when you press share. Double-check before sharing and spare your friends that unnecessary shock.
  • If your account is compromised and misused to spread truly harmful content, it will blend in better in a stream of chain letters. Your friends are less likely to notice any difference and more likely to click on the malicious link from “you”.  Such post will however stick out if your normal posts are strictly no-nonsense.
  • A historical note. Old-school computer folks dislike chain letters because they were seen as a bad thing in the early days of e-mail. This was based on the limited capacity of the computers and telecommunications at that time. Technical capacity is not a problem anymore, today’s bottleneck is our capacity to process all the messages we get. But as said above, even if the technical capacity is there, it is still a bad idea to circulate chain letters.

And by the way. Why should you support this particular child? Just because you got a picture of him? There are probably thousands of real children with the same disease. You feel emotionally involved, that’s good. Let’s use your emotions for something more productive than just passing hoaxes around. Look up a local charity organization that work with children and make a donation while watching the picture. That really matters!

So, to summarize. Don’t feel bad if you have shared chain letters like this. As said, they do no direct harm. But I hope that as many as possible become aware of the downsides and start ignoring them. Our Facebook experience would be tidier.

So now you know how to spot a chain letter. Just click the share button and make sure all your friends on Facebook also know. Hey, wait… :)

Safe surfing,
Micke

Image from About.com Urban legends

More posts from this topic

trust, internet, internet of things

A Brief History of the Trusted Internet

By Allen Scott, managing director of F-Secure UK and Ireland The internet and the industry which surrounds it is at a tipping point. The scramble to dominate in emerging product and service markets has led many organisations to lose sight of what the Internet should be. If things continue on this downward moral trajectory, we run the risk of breaching the rights of every person who uses it. As a general rule of thumb, violating customers and prospects is not a wise sales strategy. This is why the Trusted Internet is so important now, in 2015, to stem the tide. Half the world away The internet has morphed from a military funded academic computer network into the World Wide Web into what we know today. It has created new industries and billionaire business owners. It has made the world smaller by connecting people who would never otherwise have interacted. It has helped every person by making their life a little easier – from keeping in touch with family to being the number one resource for research on any given subject. It is hard to imagine life without it. Of course, not everyone is online…yet. Figures vary, but it is generally accepted that approximately 3 billion people are now connected to the internet. That is 42% of the world’s population. By 2018, it is estimated that half of the world’s population will be online. That means that every other person could have their human right to privacy (Article 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights) violated. It is unacceptable because it is avoidable. Personal data – the ultimate renewable resource The internet is now an extension of mankind. It is our marvellous creation and we are growing more and more dependent on it. The problem is that it is turning into a Frankenstein’s monster. We are so consumed with whether something (such as tracking people’s movements online) is possible, that the industry has forgotten to ask themselves whether they should. Morality has been pushed aside in the race to gain more personal data, for knowledge is power. Don’t believe how valuable data is? Just take a look at Google. A giant of the internet, it made over £11 billion in profit last year. Not bad for a company which gives away its services for free. Google collects so much data on its users that it is the fourth largest manufacturer of servers in the world. It doesn’t even sell servers! Personal data is big business. Advertisers pay a lot of money for profiles on people. What people like, where they live, who they are likely to vote for, whether they are left-handed – some marketing companies claim to have up to 1,500 points of interest on each individual’s profile. Are all of these ‘interesting points’ something which those people are happy to have shared? I doubt it.  What about the Internet of Things Next up is the Internet of Things (IoT). A concept whereby a vast number of objects, from toasters to bridges, will be connected to the internet where they will share the data they collect. The benefits of this emerging network is that analysis of the data will lead to efficiencies and will make life easier still for people. For example, I could combine the data collected from my smartphone pedometer, my diet app and my watch’s heart monitor to analyse my health and make informed improvements. So far, so good. The IoT waters get a little murkier when you start asking who else has access to that data about me. Maybe I don’t mind if my doctor sees it, but I’m not comfortable with marketing companies or health insurers seeing that data. It’s private. We are fortunate that we are still in the fledgling stage of the IoT and have the opportunity to shape how it impacts our private lives. This is a relatively small window in which to act though, so we must be outspoken in order to protect people’s civil liberties. The ethical solution The next stage of internet development needs to be the Trusted Internet. People have the right to privacy online and it is entirely possible. Not every business and organisation online is part of the data-collecting frenzy. Some, like F-Secure, simply don’t care what you want to look up in a search engine or which websites you visit (unless they are malicious, of course!). We believe that your data is exactly that – yours. Until now, the internet has developed a taste for the free in people. Users have been reluctant to pay for services which they could get for free elsewhere. But now people are realising that when they don’t pay for the product, they are the product. With F-Secure, our customers are just that – customers. Being the customer, their data is their own. Our job is to protect them and their data. We believe that the internet should be a place for people to learn and interact. There shouldn’t be a price on this in the form of our privacy. If there should be a price, it should be monetary, so that people have the chance to buy the services they wish to use, rather than gaining access to services in exchange for personal information. I would happily pay to use Google, Facebook, LinkedIn or one of the many other sites which stakes claim to me when I sign up. We are the generation which created the internet. Let’s not be the generation which disposed of decency, respect and privacy too. [Image by Timo Arnall | Flickr]

Feb 27, 2015
Apple

Which operating system is the most secure? Four points to remember.

No, you are almost certainly wrong if you tried to guess. A recent study shows that products from Apple actually are at the top when counting vulnerabilities, and that means at the bottom security-wise. Just counting vulnerabilities is not a very scientific way to measure security, and there is a debate over how to interpret the figures. But this is anyway a welcome eye-opener that helps kill old myths. Apple did for a long time stubbornly deny security problems and their marketing succeeded in building an image of security. Meanwhile Windows was the biggest and most malware-targeted system. Microsoft rolled up the sleeves and fought at the frontline against viruses and vulnerabilities. Their reputation suffered but Microsoft gradually improved in security and built an efficient process for patching security holes. Microsoft had what is most important in security, the right attitude. Apple didn’t and the recent vulnerability study shows the result. Here’s four points for people who want to select a secure operating system. Forget reputation when thinking security. Windows used to be bad and nobody really cared to attack Apple’s computers before they became popular. The old belief that Windows is unsafe and Apple is safe is just a myth nowadays. There is malware on almost all commonly used platforms. Windows Phone is the only exception with practically zero risk. Windows and Android are the most common systems and malware authors are targeting them most. So the need for an anti-malware product is naturally bigger on these systems. But the so called antivirus products of today are actually broad security suites. They protect against spam and harmful web sites too, just to mention some examples. So changes are that you want a security product anyway even if your system isn’t one of the main malware targets. So which system is most secure? It’s the one that is patched regularly. All the major systems, Windows, OS X and Linux have sufficient security for a normal private user. But they will also all become unsafe if the security updates are neglected. So security is not really a selection criteria for ordinary people. Mobile devices, phones and tablets, generally have a more modern systems architecture and a safer software distribution process. Do you have to use a desktop or laptop, or can you switch to a tablet? Dumping the big old-school devices is a way to improve security. Could it work for you? So all this really boils down to the fact that you can select any operating system you like and still be reasonable safe. There are some differences though, but it is more about old-school versus new-school devices. Not about Apple versus Microsoft versus Linux. Also remember that your own behavior affects security more than your choice of device, and that you never are 100% safe no matter what you do.   Safe surfing, Micke   Added February 27th. Yes, this controversy study has indeed stirred a heated debate, which isn’t surprising at all. Here’s an article defending Apple. It has flaws and represent a very limited view on security, but one of its important points still stands. If someone still thinks Apple is immortal and invincible, it’s time to wake up. And naturally that this whole debate is totally meaningless for ordinary users. Just keep patching what you have and you will be fine. :) Thanks to Jussi (and others) for feedback.  

Feb 26, 2015
BY 
NSA, GCHQ, listening, mobile calls, privacy

Is the NSA listening to your mobile calls? Maybe. Here’s what you can do about it.​

The newest leak from Edward Snowden may be coming at a terrible time for the Obama White House but it's not particularly shocking news to security experts. The Intercept's report about the "Great SIM Heist" reveals American and British spies stole the keys that are "used to protect the privacy of cellphone communications across the globe" from Gemalto, the world's largest manufacturer of SIM cards. It goes on to report that "With these stolen encryption keys, intelligence agencies can monitor mobile communications without seeking or receiving approval from telecom companies and foreign governments," which sidesteps the needs for legal warrants that should be the foundation of ethical law enforcement. While this is certainly troubling and speaks to the agencies wanton regard for privacy and some amateurish procedures being used to transport keys, it likely won't alter the security landscape much. "The best summary is that an already unreliable communication method became even more unreliable," F-Secure Labs Senior Researcher Jarno Niemela, the holder of 20 security-related patents, explained. "Nobody in their right minds would assume GSM  [Global System for Mobile Communications --the digital cellular network used by mobile phones] to be private in the first place," he said. "Phone networks have never been really designed with privacy in mind." Mobile operators are much more concerned with being able to prevent their customers from avoiding billing. While a scope of such a breach does seem huge, Jarno points we're not sure how many of the billions of cards manufactured by Gemalto may be affected. Keys sent to and from operators via without encryption in email or via FTP servers that were not properly secured are almost certainly compromised. But according to The Intercept, GCHQ also penetrated “authentication servers,” which allow it to "decrypt data and voice communications between a targeted individual’s phone and his or her telecom provider’s network" regardless who made the cards. With the cracked keys, users' calls would be vulnerable but likely only in a limited manner. "I am told that these keys only expose the encryption and authentication between the mobile device and the local cell tower," F-Secure Security Advisor David Perry explained. "This means that the NSA or (whoever else) would have to be locally located within radio range of your phone." So could the NSA or GCHQ be listening to your calls without a warrant? Maybe. Here's what you can do about it. Add a layer of encryption of your own to any device you use to communicate. A VPN like our Freedome will protect your data traffic. This would not, however, protect your voice calls. "Maybe it’s time to stop making 'traditional' mobile phones calls," F-Secure Labs Senior Researcher Timo Hirvonen suggests. "Install Freedome, and start making your calls with apps like Signal." [Image by Julian Carvajal | Flickr]

Feb 23, 2015
BY