Do Twitter Phishing Scams Herald the End of Microblogs?

An anonymous reader writes "Twitter's been hit by a big phishing scam. Culture Crash blogger Dan Tynan says this is the end of Twitter's innocence. Will tweets become like email, with two out of every three just worthless spam?"

Comments

Re:No, end of services

[Rinisari]

Domain phishing like the access-urls thing in the article picture could be best fixed by ssl logins...

Re:That would imply that non spam tweets were usef

[mclearn]

Then you haven't used it to track EVENTS (that affect more than one person) of personal importance to you: the first snippets of information to come out of Mumbai were via Twitter. Last night I used it to track snowfall (and traffic conditions) in Vancouver, BC. Coupled with instant upload of phone cam pictures, it was an amazingly realtime view of my personal geographic area.

Large User Base and an Open Pipe

[Ohio Calvinist]

I think we'll see spammers start to attack social networks as vastly improving spam filters make e-mail less and less viable. If a social networking site sends all "messages" on the site as e-mail or texts to the user and the user whitelists *.myspace.com or *.twitter.com (or whatever domain it sends as) all they need is to get an open pipe on that service and they've blasted both their screen, inbox and mobile.

Networks are huge blocks of users often with similar, or easily deturmined interests making the marketing more effective and development to exploit their native openness or a security flaw more profitable than spamming huge blocks of @yahoo.com addresses via e-mail only as many have good spam filters, are spam-only accounts or have gone fallow when XX69sExYbUnNiE69XXHOLLA realizes that might not be the best addy for her college admission papers or her resume.

IANAL but it would be interesting to see if using a social network as a proxy would give one any sheilding from CAN-SPAM or other state statutes since their is no protection on social networking sites, and users did opt-in to reiceve emails from the social network site.

Re:That would imply that non spam tweets were usef

[Hurricane78]

That's what ICQ (or more recently Jabber/XMPP) is for! You can send one-to-many messages there too.

Maybe Twitter is the webmailer of the messenger systems. Just as stupid. Also a step in the wrong direction.
I bet this will all continue, as soon as someone writes an OS in "AJAX / Web 2.0", then a "Browser". Then "web"sites for it.... until someone comes up with an "interactive" way of writing "applications" for those "sites".

It's called "the inner platform anti-pattern". Avoid it! ;)

Re:That would imply that non spam tweets were usef

[billyt007]

I suppose if you don't have any friends that like to keep up with what's going on in your life and vice versa.

That's what conversations are for. You know, real physical human interaction. Remember that?

Just so I have this straight, phone conversations are real physical human interactions? Are text messages? And how is reading another's twitter feed, and responding to, different then a phone conversation? Twitter isn't meant to replace physical meetings or hanging out with friends, it's for seeing what people are up without having to directly interfere with what they're currently doing. At least until we master the whole being everywhere at once thing. Then Twitter will become outdated.

Re:Let's hope so

[DrVomact]

The sane internet died a decade ago. We're in the death throws of the internet-of-the-corporate-hack. Likely our next stop will be the reincarnation of an AOL like atmosphere where a central application or website insulates you from the internet, and provides you with a limited array of things to do.

Holy cow, you've hit on the solution! This is exactly what's needed! Needed not by us, of course, but by normals. Consider the possibilities. As you well know, over 90% of the people who own computers are not qualified to use anything more complex than a simple calculator. Computers are very complex tools. What are normals using these tools for? Well, to write email, maybe do their online banking, post stupid pictures of their kids on some website and...what else do normals use computers for? Not counting apps like Free Cell that don't require an internet connection, I mean. The rest of the CPU cycles of these computers are used to transmit spam and various malware—they are the soldiers of the botnets.

Then there's the maintenance & support headaches. Who here doesn't have a gaggle of clueless relatives and friends who bombard them with stupid questions and pleas for help with their malware-clogged, zombified computers? And then blame you the next time something goes wrong?

Well, the solution is now within our reach: put everyone of these people on dumb terminals connected to a service like AOL that gives them very limited options so they're not confused. They just plug it in, turn it on, and the user menu—complete with cute tail-wagging puppy—comes up. Give them access to word processing or spreadsheet apps on a pay-as-you go basis. (No installation hassles!) Sure, their data is now 0wnz0red by some corporate empire, but normals don't care about this kind of stuff.

Better yet, all maintenance problems now become the service provider's problem. You can honestly say "Gee, I can't help you with that, but if you call MyIntarnet's tech support, I'm sure they'll fix it". Best of all, without an on-board hard drive, there's no problem with virus/trojan/worm propagation. Spam will finally die...well diminish, anyhow.

Of course that's for them; people who know better would still use real computers. It would be even better if they could have their own internet sorta like AOL was in the early days...but that's probably not practical.