I don't know about anybody else, but when taking these tests, I looked at the sites & emails with suspicion, taking my time, thinking they were all evil until 'proven' good.
Is this how I normally approach things? Do I always read the privacy policy before handing over my email address? No. Most of the time I don't even know if the site even has one. (maybe I should, but I don't)
Rather than trying to find some holy grail for eliminating spam, maybe we should start treating any site that wants our email address a bit more suspiciously, and at least read their privacy policy. (not that I am currently throwing my email address mindlessly all over the web, mind you)
Honestly, I think these kinds of things are purely scams.
"Hey! Take this test to find out that you suck and that you need to buy our products!"
It's pure scareware.
-Renegade
Bottom line, it doesn't matter what security software you buy and use, you can still be fooled into trusting when you shouldn't. Don't let your guard down. Don't let any software give you a false sense of security and think that since you run it you are allowed to be stupid.
I have always said that Common Sense™ is the best antivirus, best antispyware, best antispam...anything else is a backup for when/if that fails. And upgrades are available daily, meaning your defenses improve with experience.
If nothing else, consider whatever you got from these quizzes as a minor upgrade to your Common Sense™, even if all it was, was just a tiny bugfix that leads you to be a bit more careful than you were before.
It's this kind of thing that undermines my faith in security software and the security industry in general. They prey on fear rather than reality.
I for one would like some honesty for a change. Am I asking too much?
-Renegade
It is asking too much.
Who do you want it from, any way? The spammers? the phishers? the spyware makers? They are not about to be honest with anybody, and we really do need to sharpen our noses more every day to stay on top of things and not get fooled.
Now if you want honesty from the anti-nasty industry, you will only get it partially from any of the 'reputable' companies. They still need you to want to use their product, and any notion that their product is unnecessary doesn't translate into being able to stay in business for long.
A popup when your firewall blocks something inbound...the only purpose is to scare you into thinking that you better never get rid of your firewall...it's 'evidence' that it is actually doing something. It could just as easily block and log without bugging you. (personally, I wish it were possible for that 'blocked inbound' popup to be replaced with a popup for when it fails to block something inbound/outbound that it should have been able to block. That would be more useful.)
Up until Blaster hit, the majority of PC users didn't even know what a firewall was. Now we all not only know what one is, we also all know we need one.
Which is better? That people should wait until they have a disaster to understand the need for security? Or some anti-nasty's scare tactics get the message through their heads before a disaster happens?
To anyone here that has a life insurance policy...did you buy it because you think you are going to die tomorrow? or because you think it is
possible that you
might? If you were to die, when the insurance company hands your family the check, is it going to matter to them which one you thought? or will they just be glad you had the sense to buy some insurance and that they can afford to put you in the ground?
Security software is an insurance policy, and the tactics used to sell it is much the same as selling life insurance. You will never hear a sales pitch from an insurance company that says 'Humans die, would you like some life insurance?'
They will more likely try to scare you by telling you how great the possibility is that you will die long before you get old, and it will happen when you least expect it, and if you don't prepare now, your poor family will suffer when you are gone.
Poll