Nearly 40% of Americans Would Give Up Sex For Better Online Security, Survey Finds (huffingtonpost.com) 230
A recent survey of over 2,000 adults conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Dashlane, a "leader in online identity and password management," found that nearly 40 percent of Americans would give up sex for an entire year if it meant they'd never have to worry about being hacked. Huffington Post reports: 40 percent of people also said they'd give up their favorite food for one month in the name of peace of mind online. If all of this sounds drastic, the truth is that it probably is. The single biggest thing people can do to help keep their online identity safe is probably the easiest -- a solid password. 10 years ago, anti-virus was the primary method of online security. But since the Internet has left the desktop and is on laptops, tablets, and cell phones, and since so many people now use the cloud for backing up their sensitive data, following proper password protocol is critical. Of course, having a solid password doesn't do a lot of good if you're giving it out to people. And nearly 50% of people have shared a password to an e-mail account or to an account like Netflix with a friend or had a friend share theirs (which is a surprisingly high number when you consider that 4 out of 10 people said that sharing an online social media password was more intimate than sex). A look at the password habits of Americans showed that about 30% have used a pet's name, almost 25% have used a family member's name, 21% a birthday, and 10% each have used an anniversary, a sports team, an address, or a phone number. So if you just know a few basic, personal details about someone, you've got a decent chance at cracking their password. The study also revealed some interesting data in that younger Americans (those age 18 to 34) who grew up online are far more trusting with passwords than older generations, and married people are less likely to part with passwords than single people.
Good news everybody! (Score:5, Funny)
All you have to do is :
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I already did that, but still a virgin. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Can't give up something you don't have. Or in the Captain Tightpants parlance, "Can't miss a place you never been."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pollsters are prepared to believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
systemd works just fine thank you.
In the same way that people will tell you Windows works just fine thank you.
If you look closer, neither does.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good news everybody! (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently observed how 'systemctl whatever disable' (or whatever the correct syntax is, I don't remember) would exit successfully, even if "whatever" is not even a valid service name. No warning either. In a script that would have shat itself, but oh well, scripts are evil, right? Too transparent and readily debugable.
Now, go ahead and explain to me why exiting successfully when trying to disable a nonexistant services is A-OK because if the service does not exist, it is kinda-sorta disabled anyway and thus totally not a problem.
To me it is the poor design shining through, and with this precedent how am I supposed to trust in that this was a coincidence and the rest of systemd does not have those basic glitches that can lead to extremely obscure errors down the line. Especially since I ran into this within the first 10 minutes of familiarizing myself with that shiny new blackbox. Fuck this crap. I went back to sysvinit on Debian, and I don't even like sysvinit, but systemd is orders of magnitude worse (at the same time also being orders of magnitude bigger. the amount of code that is PID1 alone is mind-boggling. If you don't believe it, Look at the goddamn source [github.com] and, wait, no, don't just count the lines -- if you are marginally familiar with C, you will notice there is over a page worth of local includes. Are you marginally familiar with C and do you want to explain what this means wrt. to how much code is running as PID1?).
That said, other fancy new-school linux toys have similar issues. Especially the 'ip' tool or iproute2. If you script it, it better "work fine, thank you", and if not you're SOL.
Disclaimer: I'm currently being "forced" to run Linux at work, so I have to put up with this shit. I'll eventually be back on NetBSD and start enjoying watching the circus that is Linux again.
PS: You running systemd on what I assume are production servers gives evidence of carelessness. No matter how good or crappy systemd is, it is not mature. You don't run immature stuff on production servers, whenever possible. sysadmin 101.
Thus I'm going to assume 17 years means more like 5 years and you're a PFY. Thank god I don't have to work with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your observation does not match mine:
f.ultra@ubuntu:~$ sudo systemctl disable ff
[sudo] password for f.ultra:
Failed to execute operation: No such file or directory
henrik@ubuntu:~$ echo $?
1
I take it that you do understand that a return code of 1 is a failure and not success even though you sound like a noob.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have been ranted loud enough about it if it has been fixed since. You do realize that can happen, right?
I take it that you do understand that a return code of 1 is a failure and not success
Thanks for the insight, sherlock.
you sound like a noob.
I'm pretty sure I eat you for breakfast, but feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. And don't spend much time providing arguments on where that belief comes from -- there's probably some new shiny product^Wsoftware to discover and install on production. Don't lose time!
That said, people who use the word 'noob' can't be all too...oh well, let's not go int
Re: (Score:2)
Of course things can change, but you wrote "recently" and not "several years ago". And of course there will be something new and shiny to put into production, when customers demand new functionality we do not have the luxury that you apparently have to tell them that they have to wait a decade or more for the new code to mature. If we did then we would not exist as a company any more since all would flee to the competition.
Who will eat who for breakfast I have no idea and frankly no interest either, you whe
Re: (Score:2)
Either you can't take a joke or you seem to be on a legitimate frantic search for an explanation for the origin of these children. Keep looking man - I wish you the best!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but I fear there are no sex divers for Linux. That's why all linux users are virgins.
No, they're virgins because they installed the Widcomm sex drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being MITMed at work?
Security? (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, 40% of Americans have bad sex lives.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, 40% of Americans have bad sex lives.
My first thought was . . . "Nonsense! 40% of Americans aren't Slashdot readers!"
Re: (Score:2)
Given 20% of Americans are aged 14 or younger and another 20% are aged over 60, 40% feels surprisingly lower.
I know I'd sign up my 8 year old for a year of celibacy if it guaranteed a hackproof life for her.
Re: (Score:2)
Two other statistics of interest would be the percent of people that aren't employed, as opposed to the percent that have filed for unemployment, and the percent working part time, which skyrocketed due to Obamacare.
Re: (Score:2)
Two other statistics of interest would be the percent of people that aren't employed,
You get that from the inverse of the labor participation rate.
and the percent working part time, which skyrocketed due to Obamacare.
The percentage working part time is interesting, but it's the percentage seeking employment that are relevant since what we want to know is how many people working part-time actually need to be working full-time. Some people with part-time jobs are meeting their needs, and we wouldn't want to count them unfairly. Unlike the executive branch, what I am interested in here is facts, because they are the basis of intelligent decisions.
Here, abuse some more mod points (Score:2)
I answer the question, I'm marked as a troll.
Why do you love the status quo? The status quo is slavery. Why do you love slavery?
Re: (Score:2)
no matter how much you may wish it, you cannot compare two different metrics, apples vs oranges, and then say they are both apples.
you're full of crap.
Numbers don't lie (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing the female participation in this study was also at 40%.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing the female participation in this study was also at 40%.
Are you living in some alternate reality where women don't have a sex drive? By the way, that reality sounds like it sucks, which is ironic because I don't imagine much of that going on.
Re: (Score:2)
How was that movie by Woody Allen that got some Oscars?
Q [physiatrist]: How often you make love?
A: [the man]: almost never - 3 times a week!
A:[the woman]: all the time - 3 times a week!
It's not that women have no drive but it is quite a bit weaker than men's. Also, since the women control the sex, every woman gets 100% satisfied sexually [and every male is frustrated] since there is always much more demand than supply. That is if things are one to one [one man with one woman].
The "fact" that women have as s
Re:Numbers don't lie (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not that women have no drive but it is quite a bit weaker than men's.
Nah that's just a rather recent social idea. Go back a while and you find that people considered the opposite to be true.
Also, since the women control the sex,
No they don't, that's an incredibly stupid thing to think.
every woman gets 100% satisfied sexually
Fucking moron. I mean really. You actually believe that? Have you, like, ever actually talked to a woman ever? I was going to try to come up with a "logical" argument, but how can you argue with someone who just invents facts to support their world view. On an entirely unrelated note, did you vote Trump?
and every male is frustrated
I ain't.
since there is always much more demand than supply
Haaa hahahaha.
There might be a shortage of women who you think are hot enough that you want to bonk. However saying "there's a shortage of women" is somewhat different from, for example, "there's a shortage of supermodels who want to bonk me".
The "fact" that women have as strong drive as men is simply political correctness...sadly it has penetrated even biology text books.
At times past other cultures have considered the opposite to be the case.
The refusal to recognize that 9 out of 10 men are sexually frustrated [if monogamy is obeyed] is at the core of enormous amount of social trouble....
How do you know the women aren't sexually frustrated too? Oh right you don't. You just invented a fantasy where they aren't. Try actually speaking to women, or failing that, visit some internet forums where people are more likely to talk about their personal lives, such as the comments section of agony columns.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not that women have no drive but it is quite a bit weaker than men's. "
People who say that are doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that women have no drive but it is quite a bit weaker than men's.
what? [theatlantic.com]
(sources abound)
Re: (Score:2)
sources abound
Won't matter. Attitudes like that often come from "women won't have sex with me therefore the fault must lie with women". To further add to the absolution of personal responsibility and fatalism add that "it's a biological fact, so it can't possible be any fault of mine".
Re: (Score:2)
Won't matter.
Yes, that's why I kept it short and sweet. No sense in spending a lot of time, effort, or energy there.
To be fair, some women have little libido, and I know what that's like. But I've definitely been the one trying and failing to keep up, in other cases.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, some women have little libido
Oh yes. I won't try to deny it, there's a lot of variation (for men too).
Re: (Score:2)
Won't matter.
Yes, that's why I kept it short and sweet. No sense in spending a lot of time, effort, or energy there.
To be fair, some women have little libido, and I know what that's like. But I've definitely been the one trying and failing to keep up, in other cases.
I wonder though, does the study take into account the non-trivial number of people who simply don't have a sex life? It is pretty easy to give up something you aren't getting anyhow.
I'm assuming that they didn't count masturbation as sex either. What got me wondering was that the survey also included questions about giving up a favorite food. People were apparently willing to give up on that for only a month. That is showing some priorities perhaps? To give up only a favorite food - not going without.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont know if I believe this "source", it seems to be anecdotal at best.
It's true. Women just plain don't want to have sex with you. Perhaps they can smell your cowardice.
Re: (Score:2)
every woman gets 100% satisfied sexually
What color is the sky on your planet?
Seriously, your statement is the kind of thing that's said by someone who's never actually had sex, but who watches a lot of porn.
Re: (Score:2)
He's in the reality where women refuse to have sex with him.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm living in the reality where women claim to like sex but don't you dare ask them out.
No, you're living in a world where you don't understand social cues and can't tell the difference between when it's appropriate to ask a woman out, when you need to lay more groundwork before asking a woman out, and when you just need to back the f**k off.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're living in a world where you don't understand social cues and can't tell the difference between when it's appropriate to ask a woman out,
And then, actually asking them out rather than endlessly mooning over them while pretending to be their friend while whining about being in "the friend zone".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the female participation in this study was also at 40%.
Nah, that 40% doesn't have sex anyway so they're not giving up anything. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, 2000 is plenty if you ensure they are a representative sample.
For comparison, if you flipped a coin 2000 times, you would expect the percentage of heads to be very close to 50%.
for only a year? (Score:2)
Easy (Score:2)
"The single biggest thing people can do to help keep their online identity safe is probably the easiest -- a solid password."
Fucking cannot be absolutely more wrong on this one. Firstly, you "shouldn't" re-use passwords. So it isn't a "solid password", but instead a "solid password per web site". But what *IS* a solid password? That's right. Complex as fuck shit to remember. Upper, lower, number, specials, with a minimum and maximum that isn't even remotely consistent from web site to web site.
The correct a
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
"The single biggest thing people can do to help keep their online identity safe is probably the easiest -- a solid password."
Fucking cannot be absolutely more wrong on this one. Firstly, you "shouldn't" re-use passwords. So it isn't a "solid password", but instead a "solid password per web site". But what *IS* a solid password? That's right. Complex as fuck shit to remember. Upper, lower, number, specials, with a minimum and maximum that isn't even remotely consistent from web site to web site.
You aren't thinking about the real world here, you're thinking like a programmer.
Yes, a long and complex password is better from a cryptographic view, but noone will ever remember 200+ characters. /.), a secure and long password for critical sites that you access through special services (like your email account), and possibly a third medium security password for sensitive sites (like online gaming where your credit card is involved). This allows you to remember the passwords, and if a low/medium-risk password should be compromised, it doesn't matter so much. Better yet, since you only have three passwords to keep track of, you can make them a bit tougher.
If you want to be safe, then you need a simple, reusable password for low-risk sites (forum accounts like
This stuff is actually something everyday people can use in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And I thought we should all use "correct horse battery staple" for everything and that would be secure!
If we were allowed to compose passwords this way, we would indeed be secure. It's when there are silly rules that require us to remember the equivalent of c0rrectHorseB4tterystaple&* that the idea breaks down.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think rules like "must include 2 numbers and 2 special characters" should only apply for passwords shorter than 10 characters. My passwords are easy to remember, unique per site and > 22 characters long. I'm happy that's it's secure.
Re: (Score:2)
And I thought we should all use "correct horse battery staple" for everything and that would be secure!
Don't forget to put your year of birth on the end to make it unique to you...
doesn't matter (Score:2)
doesn't matter how solid your password it is if it can be reset through some mechanism you don't know about - like customer service.
or if the attacker gets a copy of your browser cache(and cookies) and gets in through that, to reset said password.
two factor yes, but the PASSWORD IS THE FUCKING EASIEST THING and well, as long as it is a password that can't be guessed in 10 tries, it doesn't really help at all.
however, since such articles would be "too hard" to understand if they talked about the actual risks
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be safe, then you need a simple, reusable password for low-risk sites (forum accounts like /.), a secure and long password for critical sites that you access through special services (like your email account), and possibly a third medium security password for sensitive sites (like online gaming where your credit card is involved).
No. You're kind of sort of close but not really. Every critical resource, like a bank or credit card, must have its own password. You cannot trust that your password is being properly protected or that you will be notified of a breach in a timely fashion.
You should probably also have a unique password for every site where someone can spend your money, but hey, it's your money. You can decide on that one. I guess that's true only if you care about whether other people can spend your money. I don't have an un
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be safe, then you need a simple, reusable password for low-risk sites (forum accounts like /.)
Fine, and exactly what I do.
a secure and long password for critical sites that you access through special services (like your email account)
No, you need a unique secure and long password for each critical site. Otherwise if any one of those sites gets compromised, they all are.
Your email account, the one that is the password-reset confirmation method for all of your other sites, is the crown jewel, the master key to all of your online accounts needs even better security. You need a secure password and a second authentication factor. If your email service doesn't support 2FA, get a better one that does and change th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A password manager is also a potential vector for attacks. Can you guarantee that the password manager and the OS it runs on are both secure? Otherwise, it's putting all your eggs in one basket.
Never mind the (not completely uncommon) problem of losing access to your password manager. Then you're faced with having lost all your passwords.
tl;dr: I'd rather lose a credit card than the whole wallet.
Re: Easy (Score:2)
Team Password Manager (http://teampasswordmanager.com/)is self hosted and has a Chrome extension, and free for two users.
Not affiliated, just a happy user.
Re: Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Team Password Manager (http://teampasswordmanager.com/)is self hosted and has a Chrome extension, and free for two users.
So you have to trust a closed source program, and run it on a server with PHP, IconCube, MySQL (with ALL privileges, no separation between user and admin rights) and Apache, and poke a hole in your firewall to reach its web server? That's increasing security?
Never mind the mind boggling idea of using a browser extension to give your browser a backdoor into it to increase convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you guarantee that the password manager and the OS it runs on are both secure? Otherwise, it's putting all your eggs in one basket.
Moot point. If you can't be at the very least reasonably certain that the OS is secure it doesn't matter how the password is input. You could have a keylogger running in the insecure OS that not only grabs usernames and passwords, but may even be able to correlate them to specific sites... E.G. foo and bar were typed immediately after typing mybank.com.
Never mind the (not completely uncommon) problem of losing access to your password manager. Then you're faced with having lost all your passwords.
This is actually a good point. But that is exactly why passwords can be reset if you forget them. It may be a pain in the ass to reset all of your password
Re: (Score:2)
Moot point. If you can't be at the very least reasonably certain that the OS is secure it doesn't matter how the password is input. You could have a keylogger running in the insecure OS
The difference is that a keylogger will only capture the password(s) you type in while the keylogger is active, and not all your passwords in one fell swoop.
If I were a blackhat able to breech your OS, I would much prefer it if you ran a password manager.
Length is most important, and sites can be related (Score:2)
> Enable two-factor authentication on any site that supports it. Even just this alone is a HUGE improvement. Plus, sites like Facebook have login attempt notifications.
Those are good things. 2FA is a bit of a hassle, so not worth it to log in to Slashdot, but certainly makes sense for a bank.
> Complex as fuck shit to remember. Upper, lower, number, specials
For 15 years, I developed password-based security full time. I had an alias or two on the cracker boards. I analyzed thousands and thousands
BS Slashvertisement for password manager (Score:5, Insightful)
After 20 years working in internet security, the headline struck me as bullshit. Just yesterday when I told a guy that making his DVR accessible via the internet would mean hackers would likely get into it, his response was "I don't care". That's about typical. So why would this survey come up with that result? The bottom section of the article begins with:
__
Dashlane makes identity and checkouts simple with its password manager and secure digital wallet app. Dashlane allows its users to securely manage passwords
__
And according to a survey conducted by McDonald's, their burgers are wonderful.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been working in computer security from way back when Checkpoint was a startup.
Use of a password manager does not solve ALL computer security problems, but it does help to solve two major problems we have today:
Poor passwords
Password reuse
Coming up with different secure passwords for every site & then remembering them all and which goes where is beyond the reach of everyone without eidetic memory, thus the Dashlane advertisement is indeed useful. If Dashlane advertising their own manager irritates y
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a black book (literally) that I keep login/passwords in. If someone breaks in my house and steals that book I'm fucked but otherwise it's pretty secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming up with different secure passwords for every site & then remembering them all and which goes where is beyond the reach of everyone without eidetic memory, thus the Dashlane advertisement is indeed useful.
No it isn't. I have two password for everything. One for regular stuff, one for important stuff. Regular people don't need a password manager, it's just adds another layer for compromise (A password in my head is more secure than one written into a closed source app that may or may not be sharing that info around intentionally or unintentionally). Password managers are useful for IT depts when sharing many privileged passwords with different users and groups, but these people already know what a password ma
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to think why I give a shit if someone hacks my DVR. Seriously. I have nothing sensitive at all on any always connected devices. I have a netbook with Peppermint Linux OS on it that I only use to do banking and ordering online crap. I connect, do business and log off. I use a simple password for the always connected devices just so they're not completely open but I'm not going to worry if someone knows I'm recording the Waltons on DirecTV.
Foothold in network, access to router admin, MITM (Score:2)
To a bad guy, your DVR isn't a DVR, it's a presence in your private network. Your router typically blocks almost all traffic from the internet, but ALLOWS all traffic from within your network. Once they are are in any device on the internal network, they are allowed to reach any other device on your internal network. You may have noticed also that Windows default security settings are different for the local network vs the internet.
Perhaps most importantly, from your DVR they can access 192.168.1.1, the a
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point. I will say that I don't allow remote admin connection to my router. The only way to log into the admin account there is via wired ethernet cable connection. I've got a decent password but really I've never worried about it because I don't store anything I'm worried about on a computer connected to a network. I never really worried about becoming a part of a botnet though I have always had the router sitting on my desk where I can watch network traffic indicators. Ages ago I did get ba
Right move then, still is now (Score:2)
> The only way to log into the admin account there is via wired ethernet cable connection.
Wireless can't reach the admin interface? Cool.
> my US Robotics 54K modem lights going hard red and the led on my HD started flashing fast. I reached over and turned the modem off
I wish more of my clients would disconnect the network when they notice a problem. That's exactly the right move. Shutting down destroys evidence, while rebooting can give give attacker a more covert channel.
After all that angst over #fakenews ... (Score:2, Insightful)
And what is this supposed to actually mean? It's just a clickbait study that doesn't really tell us a damned thing that's actually useful.
I bet 40% of the people who read this would be willing to punch the author of the study in the face for a chocolate bar, too.
Those who would trade sex for security... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about secure sex?
Browsing your pr0n on tor doesn't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrible Sample (Score:5, Insightful)
This study means absolutely nothing other than showing us that the people who visit Dashlane's site and use their products most likely either don't care or get any sex and have no problem giving it up for better online security. That's like polling Slashdot about which Mp3 player is better (Zune or iPod).
I bet if they sampled 2000 people who read the Huffpost or some other more mixed MSM site will get a vastly different answer than what this bunk poll found.
Meaningless data (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point in polling a population who believe in angels, has but the slightest knowledge of history and geography and is almost illiterate in science?
40% of Americans probably couldn't understand what "nearly 40% of Americans" even means.
We could as well discuss the percentage of toddlers who think their mum should be Queen of America.
Re: (Score:2)
my thinking was more along the lines of:
-40% of americans are stupid
-but then the election of Trump already told us that
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that a large percentage of Americans believe in imaginary sky people isn't condescending. It astounds me how the ridiculous meme of religion has pervaded a supposedly first world country. It's time for such superstitious nonsense to be replaced with reason.
Re: (Score:2)
And your answer is fallacious. How I sound has no bearing on the argument.
I could also say that you sound like a simpleton who equates brains with arrogance because you would like everyone else to go down to your level, where you might have a chance to defend yourself even with your stunted wits.
Re: (Score:2)
-there are studies that link intelligence with ideology.
-reading comprehension is simply another metric for intelligence, so....same answer.
-speaking of reading comprehension and intelligence: who wouldn't want "FREE HEALTHCARE" after multiple successful public trials (ie, successful implementation in basically every other advanced nation, as well as our own medicare system) have shown it to be both cheaper and more effective?
but then evidence based reasoning again goes back to intelligence again.
And it came out that... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy (Score:2, Funny)
I just installed APKs HOSTS file generator. Now I can shag all I want and be secure!
Carefull... (Score:2)
On the flip side, if Americans had better sex, they wouldn't be on the internet watching porn. Catch-22!
Give it up (Score:2)
Give up sex for better online security... so people will stop visiting porn websites?
Double result (Score:2)
Creationism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe even more believe in creationism. Therefore not a surprise, christians don't fuck.
First of all, if christians don't fuck, then where do new christians come from? Abstinence didn't work out for the Shakers.
And second, Creationism is by no means a majority position of mainstream christian denominations. Most (along with denominations of other world faiths) accept evolution and cosmology as the correct explanations for our origins.
Really? (Score:2)
I guess it's those people, where Christmas happens more often than sex.
I for one, would give up the internet for more sex.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one, would give up the internet for more sex.
I thought they were the same thing.
Calibration point (Score:2)
Because the polls ... (Score:2)
... are so accurate and stuff.
(Not)Fucking Americans (Score:2)
I guess I need to come up with a new sighful response to silly articles as "Fucking Americans" no longer seems to fit.
You own me (Score:2)
You fjnorkers owe me. Big time.
Poor Richard (Score:2)
Ben Franklin said it best,
And let me tell you, Franklin was a man who knew good poontang.
So presumably... (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd take the deal (Score:2)
I would do it if I were young.
As written, it would mean that in exchange for a year of no sex, I would get decades of not having to worry about not only my own account, but also the integrity of all the places that I have accounts. I have several bank, credit union, and brokerage accounts, and they would all have to be made secure to protect my accounts. There is also the IRS, and the various hospitals who hold my medical records.
"online security" has to include both endpoints to be safe. It's neither you
So says (Score:2)
So says the 40% that are not getting any as it is...
Re:Not the same (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've seen "Pretty Woman" this actually makes sense!
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's someone who's never been laid!