We should protect, not patronise, older people against scams

It’s interesting you should mention that about newsletters, Ian. For years I have been trying to get a local neighbourhood organisation to put their circulation list in the Bcc: box instead of the To: or Cc: box but to no avail. They seem to assume that all the members are as pure as the driven snow and would never forward a mailing to anyone who might misuse the information. In the end I unsubscribed and now catch up with the group’s doings by looking at their noticeboard. I originally thought this tendency arose with people who had not worked with computers in an office environment and perhaps were not aware of the ways to avoid revealing addressees’ e-mail addresses but your final para suggests otherwise. Perhaps they think that listing the names and e-mail addresses is more sociable and cohesive, and enables members to communicate with each other. I thought there were some controls on this under the Data Protection Act but I am out of touch on how it applies in the non-commercial arena. I am sure within the murky world of scamming there are ‘scouts’ whose business it is to gather names and e-mail addresses and couple them with other information to produce ‘leads’. Unprotected circulation lists are a gift to such people.

When using bcc it is worth indicating the intended recipients at the start of an email, e.g. Members of ……… Society. That makes it clear that it is not a personal email.

Indeed, and a very good idea. But the real problem is that when everyone’s addresses are listed on the CC line it only requires a single recipient whose computer has a virus or been compromised in some way to infect everyone on that list.

Good point Wavechange, or even include the org’s name in the heading.

I don’t think there’s much defence against the problem Ian has cited, other than to keep your antivirus status bang up to date.

Even if you do that for yourself, a single infected recipient might lead to a huge increase in Spam. I simply don’t understand why most folk seem almost hostile to having this pointed out.

Deborah: perhaps this is something you might do through your website?

Ian, I think the reason for their hostility is they don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Many people have had no training when it comes to computers. They can manage the basics but the rest is gobbledygook to them.

All the more reason for Deborah to feature some items about the problem on her website, perhaps?

On the question of funeral plans, there have been two fairly recent conversations on this subject which are worth reading –

Is Dying Too Expensive? [05/09/2013], and

Pay Now to Rest in Peace? [16/06/2013]

And there was also a lot more coverage through comments in a Conversation earlier this year called –

Are Products Aimed at the Over-50s Delivering Poor Value? [17/01/2015]

I wouldn’t say there is intense pressure to take out funeral plans, but it is a competitive business and there is a lot of persuasive advertising . These plans lock in the cost of a future funeral at today’s prices according to the grade of funeral selected. However, as the previous Conversations advised, there are extra expenses arising at a funeral that will not be included in the plan and could rise at a faster rate then current inflation so independent additional saving is advisable . I don’t think one should dismiss funeral plans out of hand as they can be a good idea for lots of people but the simplistic marketing might lead some people to make the wrong choice.

One area where there ought to be better advice is in cases where an Inheritance Tax liability is likely to arise. In those cases it might not be a good idea to pay for the funeral in advance through a funeral plan; the expenses of a funeral are deductible from the value of the estate for the purposes of calculating the IHT liability but this cannot be done where a pre-paid funeral plan exists. I doubt if the companies selling these plans point that out to their clients, or do a proper fact-find to check whether the plan is appropriate for their circumstances.

My 86 year old brother who lived in Vancouver passed away last year and to our astonishment and surprise, in his will he requested no funeral, although he could well afford one. Once I got over my initial shock I can see the logic behind his thinking, except as John makes the point for IHT purposes.

Obviously an individual choice but it is not necessary to have a funeral if you dont want one. Whilst on the subject, a new Which? App has appeared on my browser and I can’t make up my mind whether it represents a funeral director or the Grim Reaper but it’s giving me the creeps. Can anyone advise how to get rid
of it please 😕

The PC set-up for the computer illiterate and the mobile phone plug socket that informs family that the kettle [whatever ] has been boiled are imaginative and I believe useful.

As a matter of course I receive emails from several charities, some review and gadget sites, and I receive emails from the French and American consumer bodies, look at the RICA site, and plus daily emails from Stiftung Warentest – and both these innovations were new to me.

My current concern is saving Which? from self-destructing however I have always had half an eye on the items for the elderly given parents … and the possibility I might end up that way : )

William you are right about BT Mail I thought it was all over getting away from the evil Yahoo Mail which admittedly gave your info to third parties allowed all sorts of malware through etc but BT Mail is US run and even with its fabulous website that leaves you in awe allows through Phishing and click on this to download a big trojan usually using BT,s OWN letter heading nearly expertly done a bit disappointing considering I have another eastern email service(Yandex ) that has virus protection and its FREE! . BT,s excuse is well you arent paying for it (directly ) so there.