Subject:
|
Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:38:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
ssgore@superonline.=NoSpam=com
|
Viewed:
|
558 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> > kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> > being run out of groups on a rail...
>
> I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
> your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
> flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the
> discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
> it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
> but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
>
> And is someone who practicies "Social Engineering" typically referred to as
> an "SE hacker"?
>
> --Todd
Of course it's your call, but I don't think it's really necessary to put
something like that into TOS. Current TOS is already forbids many things
involved with this recent "social engineering" issue as you called. It
doesn't matter too much to me what is underside of hostility. If someone
want to "engineer" us "socially" by a way that fits the general harmony
here (i.e. we are not disrupted in anyway) I don't care (probably I even
don't notice). And if some other "engineer" (i.e. psycho) tries to
destroy our comfort here, I don't care, too, what is his/her real
purpose to achieve, he/she will get the same response from me.
Selçuk
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
