5 Facebook Scams: Protect Your Profile
Facebook and other social networks can be downright unfriendly when it comes to scam attempts. Here's how to protect yourself and your Facebook friends.
Beny Rubinstein knows computer security. An employee of a Seattle-area tech giant with 20 years of IT experience under his belt, Rubinstein has seen a side of the industry that most people will never know. He holds a degree in computer engineering, and -- oh yeah -- he just got scammed out of $1,100 on Facebook.
Rubinstein's experience isn't entirely uncommon. (We'll get to the specifics in a moment.) What's striking about his story, though, is that it demonstrates how easily anyone -- even a highly trained expert in computer security -- can be ensnared by a seemingly simple social network scam. And all kinds of these scams are on the loose.
More than 20,000 pieces of malware attacked social networks in 2008 alone, estimates the online-security firm Kaspersky Lab. That's no surprise, either: While e-mail is still the most spam-filled medium, researchers suspect that social network cybercrime is growing at a far faster rate.
"People are used to receiving spam malicious messages in their e-mail, but it is much less common on Facebook," says Graham Cluley, a senior technology consultant with Sophos, which makes antivirus and anti-spam software. "They are lulled into a false sense of security and act unsafely as a result."
You can avoid becoming one of the many who make that mistake. We've dug up the dirt on five scams currently posing a threat on Facebook. We turned to analysts who study them as well as to users who have fallen for them, all to help spread the word about how these things work and how you can best dodge them. (Facebook representatives did not respond to our request for comment.)
Knowledge is the greatest weapon against becoming a victim. Read on, and arm yourself well.
Scam #1: The Nigerian 419
The scam: It may sound like a hip new emo band (or a somewhat old e-mail scam), but the Nigerian 419 will do more than just offend your ears -- it'll also empty your wallet. The moniker refers to a scam dating back decades that has recently entered the social network scene.
Back to Rubinstein. A couple of months ago, Rubinstein received some alarming Facebook messages from a friend and fellow tech professional.
"[He said] he was in the U.K. and was robbed, and needed $600 to fly back to Seattle," Rubinstein recalls.
The messages came both in Facebook-based IMs and in e-mail. They included details such as family members' names, making the notes appear all the more authentic. It wasn't until two hours and $1,100 later that Rubinstein realized what had happened: Someone had hijacked his buddy's account, contacted his friends and -- at their expense -- made off like a bandit.
"Scammers figured out that even though social networks don't have direct access to money, they have access to information that gives you a good shot at getting someone else's money," says Vicente Silveira, a product management director at VeriSign and a friend of Rubinstein's.
The protection: Before you send cash to a pal who seems to be in trouble, try to contact him or her outside of the social network, either by phone or by external e-mail. Not feasible? Ask an extremely personal question that a hacker couldn't possibly figure out from information within the profile. We'll leave the specifics up to you.
for more read: http://tech.msn.com/security/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=18356911>1=40000
Showing posts with label current affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label current affairs. Show all posts
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Stress
Is It Less Stressful to Get Laid Off Than Stay On?
It is a familiar scene these days: employees taking newly laid-off co-workers out for a consolation drink. But which side deserves sympathy more, the jobless or the still employed? On March 6, researchers at a conference at the University of Cambridge heard data suggesting it's the latter: compared with people who are straight-up laid off, those who keep their job but are under a constant threat of losing it suffer a greater decline in mental well-being.
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1391608, 142, 225, -1);
Brendan Burchell, a Cambridge sociologist, presented his analysis based on various surveys conducted across Europe. The data suggest that employed people who feel insecure in their job display similar levels of anxiety and depression as those who are unemployed. But whereas a newly jobless person's mental health may "bottom out" after about six months, and then even begin to improve, the mental state of people who are perpetually worried about losing their job "just continues to deteriorate, getting worse and worse," Burchell says. (See 150 recession-proof jobs.)
Burchell argues that policymakers and employers should prepare for the fallout from the stress and anxiety that the existing workforce is currently suffering. "From a societal perspective, we can expect worse things to come," he says. "Presently we are going through a 'shock' period." But in a year, Burchell says, the people who have had to endure the ongoing threat of being fired — and deal with the frustration of not being able to plan for their future or feel in control of their life — may begin to suffer severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, such as insomnia, substance abuse and lethargy. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)
Burchell's conclusions, which he presented at the conference "Credit Crunch: Gender Equality in Hard Times," have been drawn from his study of about 300 British workers as well as various European workforce studies and the British Household Survey of approximately 5,000 people, which has charted the effects of social and economic change on mental health since 1991. Both Burchell's study and the British Household Survey used a 12-item questionnaire — called the GHQ 12 — that is designed to measure symptoms of stress and anxiety with questions like "Have you recently been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?" and "Have you recently been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?"
Although Burchell's findings may be representative of all societies, the researcher stresses that his study population was based entirely in Europe, which has a more generous welfare program than the U.S., a condition that could have affected data from unemployed respondents. (See pictures of unemployment in Cleveland.)
Burchell's study wasn't designed to offer direct explanations of the data, but there are established psychological patterns that may suggest them. For example, psychologists have documented an "impact bias in affective forecasting," which is the tendency for people to overestimate how strongly they will react to emotional events. One study showed that university professors greatly overestimate the jubilation or depression they would feel after learning whether they had been offered tenure. That may help explain both the depression among the still-employed and the relative well-being of those who lost their job.
Also pertinent is the theory — backed by so-called positive psychologists — that human beings have an inherited base level of happiness that fluctuates only during periods of change. In his book The Happiness Hypothesis, for example, Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, discusses the opposing case studies of winning the lottery and becoming paralyzed. He writes, "It's better to win the lottery than to break your neck, but not by as much as you'd think ... Within a year, lottery winners and paraplegics have both (on average) returned most of the way to their baseline levels of happiness." (See George W. Bush's biggest economic mistakes.)
Evolutionary psychologists support this theory by arguing that human beings feel more stress during times of insecurity because they sense an immediate but hard-to-discern threat — the modern-day equivalent of an unseen predator growling in the trees. Patients have been known to experience higher levels of anxiety, for example, while waiting for biopsy results than knowing the diagnosis — even if the result is cancer. It's better to get the bad news and start doing something about it rather than languish in limbo. When the uncertainty is prolonged, people stay in a sustained "fight or flight" response, which leads to damaging stress.
But not every employee in insecure industries has such a gloomy view, Burchell says. Entrepreneurs seem to thrive. In general, women fare better too. While reporting higher levels of anxiety than men when directly questioned, women scored lower in stress on the GHQ 12, even when they had a job they felt insecure about losing. As Burchell explains, "For women, most studies show that any job — it doesn't matter whether it is secure or insecure — gives psychological improvement over unemployment." Burchell hypothesizes that the difference in men is that they tend to feel pressure not only to be employed, but also to be the primary breadwinner, and that more of a man's self-worth depends on his job. (See pictures of the top 10 scared traders.)
So what nugget of advice can Burchell offer to those lucky millions across the globe who are still employed but are worried about losing their job? After scouring through the surveys in search of the key to an even mental keel, Burchell came up with, "Nothing. Certainly some individuals cope better, but we don't know why. It seems there are just certain things about job insecurity that can't be overcome."
It is a familiar scene these days: employees taking newly laid-off co-workers out for a consolation drink. But which side deserves sympathy more, the jobless or the still employed? On March 6, researchers at a conference at the University of Cambridge heard data suggesting it's the latter: compared with people who are straight-up laid off, those who keep their job but are under a constant threat of losing it suffer a greater decline in mental well-being.
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1391608, 142, 225, -1);
Brendan Burchell, a Cambridge sociologist, presented his analysis based on various surveys conducted across Europe. The data suggest that employed people who feel insecure in their job display similar levels of anxiety and depression as those who are unemployed. But whereas a newly jobless person's mental health may "bottom out" after about six months, and then even begin to improve, the mental state of people who are perpetually worried about losing their job "just continues to deteriorate, getting worse and worse," Burchell says. (See 150 recession-proof jobs.)
Burchell argues that policymakers and employers should prepare for the fallout from the stress and anxiety that the existing workforce is currently suffering. "From a societal perspective, we can expect worse things to come," he says. "Presently we are going through a 'shock' period." But in a year, Burchell says, the people who have had to endure the ongoing threat of being fired — and deal with the frustration of not being able to plan for their future or feel in control of their life — may begin to suffer severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, such as insomnia, substance abuse and lethargy. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)
Burchell's conclusions, which he presented at the conference "Credit Crunch: Gender Equality in Hard Times," have been drawn from his study of about 300 British workers as well as various European workforce studies and the British Household Survey of approximately 5,000 people, which has charted the effects of social and economic change on mental health since 1991. Both Burchell's study and the British Household Survey used a 12-item questionnaire — called the GHQ 12 — that is designed to measure symptoms of stress and anxiety with questions like "Have you recently been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?" and "Have you recently been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?"
Although Burchell's findings may be representative of all societies, the researcher stresses that his study population was based entirely in Europe, which has a more generous welfare program than the U.S., a condition that could have affected data from unemployed respondents. (See pictures of unemployment in Cleveland.)
Burchell's study wasn't designed to offer direct explanations of the data, but there are established psychological patterns that may suggest them. For example, psychologists have documented an "impact bias in affective forecasting," which is the tendency for people to overestimate how strongly they will react to emotional events. One study showed that university professors greatly overestimate the jubilation or depression they would feel after learning whether they had been offered tenure. That may help explain both the depression among the still-employed and the relative well-being of those who lost their job.
Also pertinent is the theory — backed by so-called positive psychologists — that human beings have an inherited base level of happiness that fluctuates only during periods of change. In his book The Happiness Hypothesis, for example, Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, discusses the opposing case studies of winning the lottery and becoming paralyzed. He writes, "It's better to win the lottery than to break your neck, but not by as much as you'd think ... Within a year, lottery winners and paraplegics have both (on average) returned most of the way to their baseline levels of happiness." (See George W. Bush's biggest economic mistakes.)
Evolutionary psychologists support this theory by arguing that human beings feel more stress during times of insecurity because they sense an immediate but hard-to-discern threat — the modern-day equivalent of an unseen predator growling in the trees. Patients have been known to experience higher levels of anxiety, for example, while waiting for biopsy results than knowing the diagnosis — even if the result is cancer. It's better to get the bad news and start doing something about it rather than languish in limbo. When the uncertainty is prolonged, people stay in a sustained "fight or flight" response, which leads to damaging stress.
But not every employee in insecure industries has such a gloomy view, Burchell says. Entrepreneurs seem to thrive. In general, women fare better too. While reporting higher levels of anxiety than men when directly questioned, women scored lower in stress on the GHQ 12, even when they had a job they felt insecure about losing. As Burchell explains, "For women, most studies show that any job — it doesn't matter whether it is secure or insecure — gives psychological improvement over unemployment." Burchell hypothesizes that the difference in men is that they tend to feel pressure not only to be employed, but also to be the primary breadwinner, and that more of a man's self-worth depends on his job. (See pictures of the top 10 scared traders.)
So what nugget of advice can Burchell offer to those lucky millions across the globe who are still employed but are worried about losing their job? After scouring through the surveys in search of the key to an even mental keel, Burchell came up with, "Nothing. Certainly some individuals cope better, but we don't know why. It seems there are just certain things about job insecurity that can't be overcome."
meltdown
Could Rising Seas Swallow California's Coast?
Imagine San Francisco Airport under water, or Long Beach Harbor in Los Angeles, home to the second busiest port in America, washed away. Picture Orange County's Newport Beach completely submerged under the encroaching ocean.
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1391608, 142, 225, -1);
That's the soggy future that could be in place for California at the end of this century, if climate change continues unabated. According to the Pacific Institute, an environmental NGO that specializes in water, unchecked global warming may cause the world's seas to rise more than 4.6 feet (1.4 m). The California government commissioned the institute's study released on March 11, one of a number of forthcoming reports on how climate change will affect the coastal state and one of the most detailed analyses yet on the local impact of rising seas.
The Pacific Institute found that by 2100, an estimated 480,000 Californians will be at risk of increased flooding — almost double the number currently living in disaster-prone areas of state — along with roads, schools, hospitals and other low-lying coastal infrastructure. Altogether nearly $100 billion worth of coastal property could be at risk — and the cost to protect that land from flooding will likely be in the billions, even if we do control greenhouse gas emissions. "This change is inevitable, and it's going to alter the character of California's coast," says Heather Cooley, a senior research associate at the Pacific Institute and a co-author of the report.
The report's warnings are so striking in part because the study assumes a much higher sea level rise than past analyses. The 1.4 m figure used in the Pacific Institute study — which comes from research by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography — is considerably higher than the estimates put forth in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) most recent assessment in 2007, which projected a sea level rise of between 18 to 59 cm by 2100. But the IPCC numbers were based on older data, and took into account only the thermal expansion of the seas. (Water expands as it heats, so warmer seas will rise.) The IPCC did not factor in the potentially far greater impact of melting ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica — Greenland alone has enough frozen ice to raise sea levels more than 20 feet. At the time of the IPCC report, the polar ice sheets were clearly melting, but it wasn't clear how fast they were going or how they would respond to rising temperatures in the future.
New research is clarifying the ice cap question — and the results are sobering. Scientists at the Climate Change Congress in Copenhagen this week presented a study estimating that sea levels could rise globally by 1 m or more by the end of the century, with large regional differences around the world. At the lower end of the estimate, scientists say it's unlikely that seas will rise less than 50 cm even if we can get a grip on carbon emissions. The revised predictions are due to better data on melting in Greenland, Antarctica and other glaciers around the world, which is currently pouring water into the oceans and causing them to rise. Altogether up to 600 million people in coastal areas around the world could be at increased risk for flooding. "Unless we take urgent and significant mitigation actions, the climate could cross a threshold during the 21st century committing the world to a sea level rise of meters," said John Church, an oceanographer a the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research and one of the study's co-authors.
The Pacific Institute report takes that abstract number and shows what it will mean for the cities, streets, bridges, beaches and power plants in America's most populous — and vulnerable — state. Nearly half a million people will be at risk for what's called a 100-year flood event. That doesn't mean a flood that happens once a century, but rather a disaster that has a 1% of happening every year — which means it has a 26% chance of happening over the life of an average 30-year mortgage. The vulnerability is concentrated along the coastline of the San Francisco Bay area, where large parts of both San Francisco and Oakland could be threatened with extreme flooding by the end of the century. Even parts of the Pacific coastline that may be shielded from flooding could be at risk for increased erosion. Worse, as with Hurricane Katrina, it will be the poor and those without insurance who will likely bear the brunt of the flooding damage. "There's this notion that those living on the coast are all rich with insurance," says Cooley. "But in fact these populations are often poor, and they will be particularly vulnerable."
The best way to protect California's coasts would be to sharply reduce carbon emissions now and hope to avert the worst of the warming. But even if we do cut carbon soon, we've locked in sea level rise, and we need to begin protecting sensitive coastlines better than we did in New Orleans. The Pacific Institute study suggests that some 1,100 miles of improved coastal defenses — including dunes and seawalls — would be needed to protect against a 1.4 m sea rise. It won't be cheap — the cost will be at least $14 billion up front according to the Pacific Institute, with an additional $1.4 billion a year in maintenance costs. But even that might not be enough. "Eventually you could see phased abandonment of certain areas that would experience flooding a lot," says Cooley. We're used to controlling the effects of nature, but if we fail to control climate change, we may have to surrender.
Imagine San Francisco Airport under water, or Long Beach Harbor in Los Angeles, home to the second busiest port in America, washed away. Picture Orange County's Newport Beach completely submerged under the encroaching ocean.
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755774, 1391608, 142, 225, -1);
That's the soggy future that could be in place for California at the end of this century, if climate change continues unabated. According to the Pacific Institute, an environmental NGO that specializes in water, unchecked global warming may cause the world's seas to rise more than 4.6 feet (1.4 m). The California government commissioned the institute's study released on March 11, one of a number of forthcoming reports on how climate change will affect the coastal state and one of the most detailed analyses yet on the local impact of rising seas.
The Pacific Institute found that by 2100, an estimated 480,000 Californians will be at risk of increased flooding — almost double the number currently living in disaster-prone areas of state — along with roads, schools, hospitals and other low-lying coastal infrastructure. Altogether nearly $100 billion worth of coastal property could be at risk — and the cost to protect that land from flooding will likely be in the billions, even if we do control greenhouse gas emissions. "This change is inevitable, and it's going to alter the character of California's coast," says Heather Cooley, a senior research associate at the Pacific Institute and a co-author of the report.
The report's warnings are so striking in part because the study assumes a much higher sea level rise than past analyses. The 1.4 m figure used in the Pacific Institute study — which comes from research by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography — is considerably higher than the estimates put forth in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) most recent assessment in 2007, which projected a sea level rise of between 18 to 59 cm by 2100. But the IPCC numbers were based on older data, and took into account only the thermal expansion of the seas. (Water expands as it heats, so warmer seas will rise.) The IPCC did not factor in the potentially far greater impact of melting ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica — Greenland alone has enough frozen ice to raise sea levels more than 20 feet. At the time of the IPCC report, the polar ice sheets were clearly melting, but it wasn't clear how fast they were going or how they would respond to rising temperatures in the future.
New research is clarifying the ice cap question — and the results are sobering. Scientists at the Climate Change Congress in Copenhagen this week presented a study estimating that sea levels could rise globally by 1 m or more by the end of the century, with large regional differences around the world. At the lower end of the estimate, scientists say it's unlikely that seas will rise less than 50 cm even if we can get a grip on carbon emissions. The revised predictions are due to better data on melting in Greenland, Antarctica and other glaciers around the world, which is currently pouring water into the oceans and causing them to rise. Altogether up to 600 million people in coastal areas around the world could be at increased risk for flooding. "Unless we take urgent and significant mitigation actions, the climate could cross a threshold during the 21st century committing the world to a sea level rise of meters," said John Church, an oceanographer a the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research and one of the study's co-authors.
The Pacific Institute report takes that abstract number and shows what it will mean for the cities, streets, bridges, beaches and power plants in America's most populous — and vulnerable — state. Nearly half a million people will be at risk for what's called a 100-year flood event. That doesn't mean a flood that happens once a century, but rather a disaster that has a 1% of happening every year — which means it has a 26% chance of happening over the life of an average 30-year mortgage. The vulnerability is concentrated along the coastline of the San Francisco Bay area, where large parts of both San Francisco and Oakland could be threatened with extreme flooding by the end of the century. Even parts of the Pacific coastline that may be shielded from flooding could be at risk for increased erosion. Worse, as with Hurricane Katrina, it will be the poor and those without insurance who will likely bear the brunt of the flooding damage. "There's this notion that those living on the coast are all rich with insurance," says Cooley. "But in fact these populations are often poor, and they will be particularly vulnerable."
The best way to protect California's coasts would be to sharply reduce carbon emissions now and hope to avert the worst of the warming. But even if we do cut carbon soon, we've locked in sea level rise, and we need to begin protecting sensitive coastlines better than we did in New Orleans. The Pacific Institute study suggests that some 1,100 miles of improved coastal defenses — including dunes and seawalls — would be needed to protect against a 1.4 m sea rise. It won't be cheap — the cost will be at least $14 billion up front according to the Pacific Institute, with an additional $1.4 billion a year in maintenance costs. But even that might not be enough. "Eventually you could see phased abandonment of certain areas that would experience flooding a lot," says Cooley. We're used to controlling the effects of nature, but if we fail to control climate change, we may have to surrender.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Filter urine
Purified urine to be astronauts’ drinking water
CAPE CANAVERAL: As NASA prepares to double the number of astronauts living aboard the International Space Station, nothing may do more for crew bonding than a machine being launched aboard the space shuttle Endeavour on Friday.
It's a water-recycling device that will process the crew's urine for communal consumption.
‘We did blind taste tests of the water,’ said NASA's Bob Bagdigian, the system's lead engineer. ‘Nobody had any strong objections. Other than a faint taste of iodine, it is just as refreshing as any other kind of water.’
‘I've got some in my fridge,’ he added. ‘It tastes fine to me.’
Delivery of the $250 million wastewater recycling gear is among the primary goals of NASA's 124th shuttle mission, which is due to launch at 7:55 p.m. EST on Friday (0055 GMT on Saturday) from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Meteorologists predicted a 70 per cent chance the weather would be suitable for launch. If the shuttle lifts off on time, it would arrive at the space station on Sunday so astronauts could begin 11 to 12 days of home improvements.
In addition to the water recycler, Endeavour carries two small bedrooms, the station's first refrigerator, new exercise gear, and perhaps most important for a growing crew — a second toilet.
‘With six people you really do need to have a two-bathroom house. It's a lot more convenient and a lot more efficient,’ said Endeavour astronaut Sandra Magnus, who will take over as a space station flight engineer from Greg Chamitoff.
Chamitoff has been aboard the outpost since the last shuttle flight in June.
NASA wants to make sure the water recycling system is working well before adding another three astronauts to the station's crew.
Shuttle supplies drying up
Reusing water will become essential once NASA retires its space shuttles, which produce water as a byproduct of their electrical systems. Rather than dumping the water overboard, NASA has been transferring it to the space station.
But the shuttle's days are numbered. Only 10 flights remain, including a final servicing call to the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA is preparing to end the program in 2010.
‘We can't be delivering water all the time for six crew,’ said space station flight director Ron Spencer. ‘Recycling is a must.’
NASA expects to process about six gallons (23 litres) of water per day with the new device. The goal is to recover about 92 per cent of the water from the crew's urine and moisture in the air.
The wastewater is processed using an extensive series of purification techniques, including distillation — which is somewhat tricky in microgravity — filtration, oxidation, and ionization.
The final step is the addition of iodine to control microbial growth, Bagdigian said.
The device is intended to process a full day's worth of wastewater in less than 24 hours.
‘Today's drinking water was yesterday's waste,’ Bagdigian said.
Liftoff
Discovery set for liftoff on Wednesday: NASA
An American flag flies near the Space Shuttle Discovery as it is prepared for launch in Cape Canaveral, Florida. — AFP
WASHINGTON: The US space shuttle Discovery is set to launch as scheduled on Wednesday on its voyage to the International Space Station, NASA mission managers said on Tuesday.
Weather forecasts predicted a 90 percent chance that conditions would be ‘acceptable’ for the launch, planned for 9:20 pm Wednesday (0120 Thursday GMT) from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, US space agency officials said.
‘We have no real concerns and we are ready for the exciting mission that lies ahead of us,’ said NASA test director Steve Payne.
The shuttle’s crew of seven arrived at the Kennedy Space Center on Sunday evening to prepare for their 14-day mission to deliver and install a fourth pair of solar panels to the International Space Station.
The panels are to supply power for onboard laboratories and more power for the station's crew, which will double from three to six in May.
Installing the panels, the final piece of a 100 billion dollar project, will take a two-astronaut team four space walks of more than six hours each to complete, NASA said.
Discovery is expected to return to earth March 25 at 19:27 GMT.
The launch, originally set for February 12, was delayed four times due to problems with control valves, which channel gaseous hydrogen from the shuttle's three main engines.
Three of the valves were replaced with newer ones. NASA engineers said the delays were implemented as a precaution to test the valves, which had come under close scrutiny after a valve aboard space shuttle Endeavour was found to be damaged during its mission to the space station in November.
Discovery’s astronauts include Koichi Wakata of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, who will become the first Japanese station crew member.
After Discovery docks, Wakata will stay aboard the station, while US astronaut Sandy Magnus -- who arrived at the ISS aboard the shuttle Endeavour in November 2008 -- will return home.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Twittering
Celebs on Twitter
There's no better indication of how popular Twitter has become than the fact it's been swamped by celebrities.
Would-be stalkers have it easy these days, as every celeb worth his or her salt has their own Twitter page where they post every detail of their day-to-day lives.
Of course, things aren't always what they seem. It's so easy to set up an account, that 'celebrity' tweeters are often exposed as imposters.
But with that in mind, we're taking a look at some of the more interesting famous Twitter users - including some who turned out to be not all they claimed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)