Discussion:
OT privacy on the t'internet
(too old to reply)
DavidK
2017-07-22 11:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.

Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
Jim Easterbrook
2017-07-22 11:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Maybe a little bit paranoid. Your email address is out there anyway, if
you've ever used it. The sender of this email needs to be educated in the
use of Bcc: though. At the very least they're giving away details of who
else is connected to whatever the email's about. The BBC got in trouble a
few years ago in similar fashion.

Don't some email clients automatically push you to use Bcc: if you try and
send to lots of people?
Post by DavidK
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Penny
2017-07-22 11:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 12:14:07 +0100, DavidK <***@invalid.invalid>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Good point.
Post by DavidK
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
It can certainly be annoying, some people don't understand the difference
between CC and BCC. But I've noticed some email clients don't like BCC.
They either refuse to send an email sent to yourself (or with no 'main'
recipient) or refuse to accept such emails (or always mark them as spam).

The main ones I get like this these days come from my local WI. The
annoying thing about this is, most of the women have email addresses
unrelated to their name so, while it might be useful to be able to email an
individual from the list, I can't figure out who's who.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2017-07-22 12:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No
--
Toodle Pip
Fenny
2017-07-22 16:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
I would be annoyed as well. I don't care that my email address(es)
are out there as public knowledge. I use different addresses for
different purposes and want different people to use specific ones. But
they don't know who on the mailing list has a virus that may end up
replicating out to everyone on the list.

But basic email etiquette, like much else, seems to have either never
been taught to some people or has gone out of the window with the rise
of social media. People think that because they are happy to share
their life with the rest of the world on FB or any other platform,
that others are the same. And modern apps don't always give you the
option (or an easily found option) to respect other people's privacy.
--
Fenny
Jenny M Benson
2017-07-22 16:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No, I wouldn't, but I have had to ask a couple of my friends not to do
just what you describe.
--
Jenny M Benson
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-22 16:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients
and the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid?
My main objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines
are infected then the infection will extract my email address and use
it to send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No, I wouldn't, but I have had to ask a couple of my friends not to do
just what you describe.
Difficult, this one. If the offender either refuses, or genuinely
doesn't seem capable of understanding what the problem is, you have to
decide between just accepting it (the behaviour), and declining the
newsletter or whatever it is. If it's something less formal than a
newsletter, even more difficult.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
Sally Thompson
2017-07-22 22:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No, you aren't being paranoid - just sensible. We once had to change our
email address because someone sent a round robin which included something
like 300 email addresses by the time it had been forwarded several times.
We told the sender we were not on email any more!

If this happens I ask people to use bcc in future.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Peter Percival
2017-07-22 23:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
I foolishly gave my 'phone number to a hospital (supposedly so I can be
easily informed of last-minute changes to appointments). They have
passed it on to at least three people without a by-your-leave.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-23 08:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <ol0lp6$33j$***@news.albasani.net>, Peter Percival
<***@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Peter Percival
I foolishly gave my 'phone number to a hospital (supposedly so I can be
easily informed of last-minute changes to appointments). They have
passed it on to at least three people without a by-your-leave.
(Hmm. I've done the same for dentist.) How do you know it was they who
passed it on?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Peter Percival
2017-07-24 12:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Peter Percival
I foolishly gave my 'phone number to a hospital (supposedly so I can
be easily informed of last-minute changes to appointments). They have
passed it on to at least three people without a by-your-leave.
(Hmm. I've done the same for dentist.) How do you know it was they who
passed it on?
Because I asked the three people who 'phoned me and they told me!
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Nick Odell
2017-07-22 23:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
Like everyone else, my answer is no.

There's a little organisation I'm involved in where the same thing
happens. Strictly speaking I believe they ought to have a data
controller with whom the buck stops with what are IMO essentially
breaches of personal data but it is a very little organisation and it
would seem disproportionately heavy-handed to insist on it.

If the people who are doing this to you, David, are big enough or
sensitive enough to ought to know better (I'm thinking education,
charity, medicine or crime etc here) then it would probably be doing
them a public service to tell them to stop it before somebody reports them.

Nick
Chris McMillan
2017-07-23 12:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No, and I don't send emails to different groups of friends using the 'to'
box either. The old blind copy is the best thing ever about email. I send
the to copy to myself.

Sincerely Chris
Sam Plusnet
2017-07-23 22:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No, and I don't send emails to different groups of friends using the 'to'
box either. The old blind copy is the best thing ever about email. I send
the to copy to myself.
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no idea
what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos were
typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever became
familiar with it.
--
Sam
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-23 23:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <Ds9dB.290758$***@fx03.am4>, Sam Plusnet
<***@home.com> writes:
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no idea
what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos were
typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever
became familiar with it.
Interesting point. (There's also the question of what the difference
between "To:" and "Cc:" is; I have a vague memory that there _is_ [or
maybe _was_] some arcane technical difference, but in practice their
_technical_ effect is identical, and it's only interpretation that
differs.) Care to suggest how "blind copy" links to the world of the
carbon-paper office?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm not a great fan of new technology. I don't change my phone every time the
bell rings - Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/1/23-29
John Ashby
2017-07-24 05:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no idea
what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos
were typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever
became familiar with it.
Interesting point. (There's also the question of what the difference
between "To:" and "Cc:" is; I have a vague memory that there _is_ [or
maybe _was_] some arcane technical difference, but in practice their
_technical_ effect is identical, and it's only interpretation that
differs.)
The difference comes in the action of Reply vs Reply All.

john
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2017-07-24 06:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Ashby
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no
idea what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos
were typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever
became familiar with it.
Interesting point. (There's also the question of what the difference
between "To:" and "Cc:" is; I have a vague memory that there _is_ [or
maybe _was_] some arcane technical difference, but in practice their
_technical_ effect is identical, and it's only interpretation that differs.)
The difference comes in the action of Reply vs Reply All.
john
Good point; I suppose that _is_ a technical rather than an
interpretational difference; it doesn't affect how the original is
propagated, but since the difference is universally recognised by mail
softwares, it does indeed affect replies.

Hang on though, no, it doesn't: a "Reply" will always go to the sender,
and a "Reply all" to all, whether the person replying is the original
"To:" person or one of the "Cc:"s. (Or even the "Bcc:"s.)

I'm still curious how Bcc: relates to the carbon-paper office, though (:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There are a lot of things that children should be shielded from, but
"bad language" isn't one of them.

"Honey, we shouldn't say that when other people are around because some
grownups get upset about it. No, I don't know why, they just do."
- "The Real Bev", in mozilla.general 2015-6-7
Sally Thompson
2017-07-24 07:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by John Ashby
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no
idea what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos
were typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever
became familiar with it.
Interesting point. (There's also the question of what the difference
between "To:" and "Cc:" is; I have a vague memory that there _is_ [or
maybe _was_] some arcane technical difference, but in practice their
_technical_ effect is identical, and it's only interpretation that differs.)
The difference comes in the action of Reply vs Reply All.
john
Good point; I suppose that _is_ a technical rather than an
interpretational difference; it doesn't affect how the original is
propagated, but since the difference is universally recognised by mail
softwares, it does indeed affect replies.
Hang on though, no, it doesn't: a "Reply" will always go to the sender,
and a "Reply all" to all, whether the person replying is the original
"To:" person or one of the "Cc:"s. (Or even the "Bcc:"s.)
Having used this system in the dim and very distant past, may I be of
assistance? When producing a letter or memo with copies you wished the main
recipient to know about, you typed "cc" and the name(s) of the other
recipients on the top copy which went through all the carbon copies, so
everyone knew who else had seen your erudite prose. However, if you wished
a "blind" copy to go to someone, you removed all the sheets except that one
and your own copy and added "bcc" with the relevant name. Is that what you
wanted to know?
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Chris McMillan
2017-07-24 08:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by John Ashby
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no
idea what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos
were typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever
became familiar with it.
Interesting point. (There's also the question of what the difference
between "To:" and "Cc:" is; I have a vague memory that there _is_ [or
maybe _was_] some arcane technical difference, but in practice their
_technical_ effect is identical, and it's only interpretation that differs.)
The difference comes in the action of Reply vs Reply All.
john
Good point; I suppose that _is_ a technical rather than an
interpretational difference; it doesn't affect how the original is
propagated, but since the difference is universally recognised by mail
softwares, it does indeed affect replies.
Hang on though, no, it doesn't: a "Reply" will always go to the sender,
and a "Reply all" to all, whether the person replying is the original
"To:" person or one of the "Cc:"s. (Or even the "Bcc:"s.)
You could take out the top copies and type on just the back copy and the
relevant. 'To' one. The railway had a two tier system. Important copies
were done on official looking paper, be it internal or external types. For
copies to people of lower grade, perhaps as a copy of your meeting with
them, that was plain paper, less quality to it.

Anything over 8 copies was typed on a reprographic thick paper, snowpak was
used (great to use) and duplicated in a dedicated department. Mostly ling
reports, minutes

Sincerely Chris
Chris McMillan
2017-07-24 08:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
No, and I don't send emails to different groups of friends using the 'to'
box either. The old blind copy is the best thing ever about email. I send
the to copy to myself.
I imagine that there are many many people 'out there' who have no idea
what "carbon copy" and "blind copy" mean.
Those terms make sense if you ever worked in an office where memos were
typed on typewriters with layers of interleaved carbon paper.
That was a long time ago and only a subset of the population ever became
familiar with it.
Which indeed is *all* I know of the working world at first hand

Sincerely Chris
198kHz
2017-07-26 17:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DavidK
I've just received an email addressed to me and 22 other recipients and
the sender put them all in the 'To:' field. Am I being paranoid? My main
objection to this is that if any of the recipients' machines are
infected then the infection will extract my email address and use it to
send spam or malware to me.
Would you give a friend's
- home telephone number
- mobile phone number
- email address
to a third party without the friend's permission?
Paranoid? Not at all. There would be considerably less spam if people
weren't so careless.

Occasionally I still have to send a couple of links to new
correspondents - usually does the trick.

http://www.designbydavid.co.uk/bcc/?doing_wp_cron=1501091170.3430430889129638671875

https://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~watrous/bcc-for-privacy.html
--
198kHz
Loading...