IMPORTANT: Don't embed non-work safe images on CaB please

[hedgehog90]

Yeah embedding just means the picture is between IMG tags so will be loaded whenever someone clicks on the thread. Linking to such an image is fine, but should be clearly marked as NWS so that people know what they're clicking on.

That's fair and I'm taking it onboard.
Sorry about the other day. It didn't cross my mind that it was inappropriate, probably because I've been engaged with Wimblewrong for the last few weeks.
I appreciated your temp-ban message and thought it was very reasonable. Apologies for the inconvenience.

[Barry Admin]

No worries man, thanks for taking it on the chin.



Forum maintenance is still running so the board is gonna be like treacle for another hour or two. I forgot there were millions of posts, silly cunt.

[Cerys]

Weird thing is that right now it's running faster for me than it has in ages.

[Barry Admin]

I fell asleep so it stopped. I'll have to babysit the rest of it tomorrow.

[Brian Freeze]

Asking for a friend here - what do you reckon could happen if someone forgot to log out of their company wifi on their smartphone in the small hours and had fifteen minutes looking at Wimblewrongs on their break before realising.

Would they be able to identify whose phone it was and how might they do that? Only four people on site at that time. Apparently.

[Dex Sawash]

A few new CaB accounts from your IT dept

[Tony Tony Tony]

Would they be able to identify whose phone it was and how might they do that? Only four people on site at that time. Apparently.

You can bet your friend's bottom dollar it could be identified. All traffic on the company Wi-Fi should normally go through a single point to monitor content, either by human eyes or more often an automated system. A lot of obvious offensive sites are blocked automatically and anything that isn't and is odd is thrown out for closer inspection. The reasons for this are obvious though varied, some business are terrified that their systems could be used for illegal purposes potentially causing highly disruptive and costly law enforcement action. Other businesses are worried about data leakage resulting in intellectual property theft, whilst some are simply concerned that employees could spend too much time on Facebook etc. The risk of being 'caught' depends on a number of factors, though principally the appetite the company has for chasing down such breaches. I have worked at places where the acceptable use policy is so tight you are blocked from seeing fairly innocuous sites to places where they don't give a monkeys about what you look at. Also you have to take into consideration the amount of traffic/number of employees as some low level breaches will simply be ignored at a business having thousands of employees.

As to your specific question about how will the exact phone be identified, any device that connects to T'Internet has a unique ID number called a MAC address (Media Access Control if you are interested) this is logged and can be traced by IT getting hold of the device in the case of a private phone or the business having a list of phones issued in the case of a business one. Also, and more simply, most people identify their phones with their own name at set up so this too can be logged and tracked.

If I were 'your friend' I wouldn't worry unduly as the situation you outline, in my experience anyway, would not even result in a blip on the radar and even if it did the worst outcome would likely be a word in your their shell like.         

[Zetetic]

And they won't have any idea what pages you were looking at, given it's your own phone (and CaB now uses HTTPS).

[Barry Admin]

The maintenance timed out, I'll run the rest of it tonight from midnight so the board isn't sluggish as fuck all day.

[Sebastian Cobb]

What zet said. But also it depends on how the wifi is set up, is it a guest wifi where you provide a guest password or did you login with your work login and password? If it's the latter the browsing history will be attributable to you.

If it's the latter it'll be attributable to your MAC in your phone but they won't immediately know it's you. Given there were 4 people on site they'd likely just grill everyone, if that didn't work they might ask for macs and could probably work it out through elimination. I like to think I'd refuse to give them it. They could argue that I have to if I connected it to the network, I could lie and say I never have connected it to the network and given my phone will still broadcast it while scanning whether I connect or not, I don't want them knowing it.

In my personal experience, if a place allows you to connect a personal device to the internet and browse the web they're not all that strict on what you do with it.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Yeah I actually wondered the same thing, I don't remember that filtering happening with any other board.

touchingcloth was right btw, there's a database error that is stopping the creation of new sub-forums so I had to repurpose another old unused one. Need to get access to the database again.

I'll run the error checking thing here and see if that fixes the "new" issue. Only fitting the board should have a technical error, I guess :-)

I just assumed it was filtering out the threads with no new posts.  Shows what I know.

Edit - dammit, I'm just screwing up left, right, and centre.

Now I'm a bit more awake I've noticed that clicking new includes 'action=unread' in the url so Cerys is right and it looks to be intentional filtering.

[Barry Admin]

Yeah I've worked it out now, its cause child boards aren't on the main page. If you click the icon to the left of eg Oscillations then that filtering will also occur, but I don't think I've done that for years, if ever. I like to just browse the actual boards without restricting myself to only updated threads.

So the "new" replaces that icon because there's no space for such.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Fair enough. Ha, I can't say I knew the icons were clickable!

[Brian Freeze]

Thanks for the reassurances Tony Tony Tony et al. Much appreciated.