|
13 Jul 21 - 04:38 PM (#4113238) Subject: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome First things first - This is NOT about Mudcat guest postings. Max and the Mods (Good 1960s covers band name!) have a great handle on blocking and removing nasty anonymous posts. This IS about anonymous postings on the social media giants. In the light of the racist abuse received by the poor lads who missed penalties in the Euro final football match there has been, quite rightly, a great outcry, including many calls to stop anonymous postings. This is usually followed by calls to ensure that anyone posting can be identified and that their identity is verified by said social media giants. While this is all well and good and, in the circumstances, I can see a good argument for it, I do worry that such open postings can and will be used for nefarious purposes to spoil innocent peoples reputations. What is more I can see some good reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. Whatcher all think? |
|
13 Jul 21 - 05:37 PM (#4113244) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Doug Chadwick What is more I can see some good reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. The best way to remain anonymous is not to post on social media. Nobody is forced to post anything on any platform. In my opinion, nothing should be posted that the poster would not be prepared to say directly to someone's face, so what would the good reasons be for wanting to remain anonymous? Mudcat and a family WhatsApp group are pretty much the only social media I use but I always post under my own name. If I did post on any other platform, I would still use my own name. If I was worried about this, I would find some other method of communication. DC |
|
13 Jul 21 - 06:14 PM (#4113249) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome "so what would the good reasons be for wanting to remain anonymous?" Wanting to ask advice about something sensitive from a large group is one. OK, maybe they should ask friends personally but some people are just not like that. The Internet is not just about insulting or abusing people, Doug. It can be used for good! |
|
13 Jul 21 - 06:36 PM (#4113251) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Doug Chadwick Wanting to ask advice about something sensitive from a large group is one. There is so much wrong with this statement. Internet "experts" are one of the scourges of modern life, whether it's self-proclaimed medics, those pushing cockeyed diets or pseudo-scientists and the like. Advice of this sort should be sought from properly qualified people where confidentiality is assured. DC |
|
13 Jul 21 - 07:18 PM (#4113255) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Steve Shaw I've posted more times than most people on this board and I often get into contentious wrangles. Despite my always using my real name and my frequent references to the area in which I live, this has not given me any problems. I do understand that there were issues with some idiot or other for some people a few years ago. On the whole, I'm with Doug. I've never felt the need for anonymity, which includes using a pseudonym as well as anonymous guest posting. And I also agree that you shouldn't post anything that you're not prepared to say to someone's face. Anonymity invites trollery, bullying behaviour and cowardice. Several times before I've mentioned Dick Gaughan's forum, which sadly became defunct when Dick's health took a nosedive. You could use a pseudonym, though many didn't bother, but you had to be logged in with your real name and contact details before you could post anything at all. There was much robust debate and the occasional needy type, but there was one moderator only, Molly, and she never really had to wear out her mod hat. |
|
13 Jul 21 - 07:46 PM (#4113263) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Stilly River Sage I think you can characterize that question as addressing the "Hive Mind" at sites - yes, there can be nonsense, but among posters there can also be consensus. And there are many instances in modern life when "properly qualified people" are simply not available, but finding a starting point in researching a problem or issue is needed. WhatsApp is a Facebook company, as is Messenger, the one I tend to use. Instagram is ramping up the communications tools also. I have it fairly well shut down ever since the troll and all of his avatars were trying to worm their way into Facebook and other accounts of Mudcat members back in the 2009-2013 period, and occasional attempts since. If nothing else, he taught us how vulnerable is the information stored in that constellation of Facebook and subsidiaries. |
|
13 Jul 21 - 07:59 PM (#4113267) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Donuel Racism in America is loud, raucaus and obvious. In Europe it is cloaked and not for polite coversation. As in football, when it is brought to the fore, oh my goodness sakes, how awful to bring it up. |
|
13 Jul 21 - 08:13 PM (#4113272) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Steve Shaw I do not use Facebook, Twitter or Instagram (I don't even know what that one is) and I use WhatsApp with my close family and about two close friends only. No groups (I've never bothered to find out what a "WhatsApp group" is). I post on The Session rarely, here a bit too much and that's my absolute lot. And I'm Steve on everything. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 01:25 AM (#4113286) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome What about anonymity as in the confessional? It does help a lot of people. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 01:35 AM (#4113287) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome I don't think advice from professionals is always that readily available, Doug. I accept what you are saying about Internet "experts" but what about something like an advice group for people unsure of their sensuality? Or with an addiction? Or one of the other myriad of issues that people, particulary the young, feel unable to talk openly about? By removing anonymity we may be cutting a lifeline for some. Surely a better way would be to moderate such a group. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 02:24 AM (#4113290) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Mr Red "so what would the good reasons be for wanting to remain anonymous?" identity theft. My nom de guerre identifies me to UK folkies. It is marketing or corporate identity and points to my website. And it just makes it harder to triangulate on aspects of me that could be used by miscreants. It isn't foolproof, it is just that the criminals will find easier targets. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 03:46 AM (#4113298) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Senoufou It does sometimes feel as if one is under siege. I'm not on any of the more popular 'soshul meedja' sites, except our village facebook thingy. I'm not anonymous on there, and everyone else posts as themselves. I find it extremely useful, to catch up on village news and events, plus to know whose dog is missing, whose hanging basket has been nicked etc. Especially during this pandemic, when we're all rather isolated. A chap up our road keeps bees, and a neighbour posted an SOS for him to advise about a colony of bees in his roof space. Help arrived and all was dealt with. But my more savvy sister has warned me about being very careful online. There are so many crooks 'out there' just waiting to grab information to access bank accounts, identity etc. I sometimes 'lurk' on Mumsnet (don't post, just have a look) and there are such a lot of nasty trolls 'giving it the big 'un'. Spiteful, hurtful and over-critical. The site has been called the Nest of Vipers! But their moderators do remove these vituperative comments eventually. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 04:29 AM (#4113299) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Doug Chadwick People should beware of exactly how much anonymity an internet handle gives them. Little by little, so much information is given out that it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out who they are, where they live and what interests they share. The false sense of security can make them more susceptible, rather than less, to fraud. DC |
|
14 Jul 21 - 04:43 AM (#4113300) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Doug Chadwick What about anonymity as in the confessional? A priest would fit into the category of "properly qualified people where confidentiality is assured". The anonymity of the confessional can't be abused to abuse others. DC |
|
14 Jul 21 - 05:09 AM (#4113302) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Nigel Parsons The anonymity of the confessional can't be abused to abuse others. That seems a little naive. "Father forgive me, last night I had sex with ______ _____" Instantly the third party's reputation has been abused. Yes, the priest should keep the matter to himself, but it may affect his view of the named person. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 05:10 AM (#4113303) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: DMcG Wanting to ask advice about something sensitive from a large group is one. There is so much wrong with this statement. Internet "experts" are one of the scourges of modern life, whether it's self-proclaimed medics, those pushing cockeyed diets or pseudo-scientists and the like. Advice of this sort should be sought from properly qualified people where confidentiality is assure Just by coincidence I made such an anonymous post a few hours ago. It was not on one of the 'social giants' web sites but still a moderately well known one. The issue concerned how I had missed a case of paedophilia for years in a neighbour's child because the possibility did not occur to me. I made the post anonymously because all the people involved are still alive, but I did want to give the message that a child visiting your house extremely often might have other reasons beyond just how much they like your children. I regard Mudcat as sufficient small scale that posting this will not risk the privacy of the people involved . |
|
14 Jul 21 - 05:21 AM (#4113305) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome It really is a tough one. I get Doug and Steve's points and fully agree. No-one should be able to abuse others and get away with it but removing all privacy is, I feel, a step too far. I don't have the answer though. Just the question! |
|
14 Jul 21 - 05:59 AM (#4113307) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome I suppose, using the priest analogy yet again, it is down to whether we trust those with our confidential information or not. There is nothing stopping the priest from shouting that x had it away with y from the rooftops apart from he promises not to. Same with Faceache and Twatter really. Maybe they should do the verified identity thing and, in their confidentiality agreement, make it known that if you breach laws about race or any hate speech they will pass your confirmed identity to the authorities. That way it does not matter if you use a handle. Or nom de plume as they call it in Keighley |
|
14 Jul 21 - 07:06 AM (#4113313) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Jos I'm not a Catholic so I don't know the rules about confessing, but couldn't one confess to having sex outside marriage WITHOUT identifying the other person involved? It is the act itself that is the "sin", not the precise identity of one's fellow sinner? |
|
14 Jul 21 - 07:36 AM (#4113317) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome One could. But where would the fun be in that? :-D |
|
14 Jul 21 - 08:07 AM (#4113320) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Jos Ah - I hadn't realised that confession was supposed to be "fun". Silly me. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 08:09 AM (#4113321) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Senoufou This isn't about 'online anonymity' but has anyone else received lots of scamming telephone calls on their landline? As we're ex-directory, the scammers must random dial. Stuff about roof insulation, 'free government grant' (ie, give us your bank details and we'll have a field day) Luckily, BT has a number you can use which blocks the latest call. But of course, this won't stop random-dialler scammers using any old number from their end. We aren't daft and don't 'entertain' them. But there must be some folk who do, or the scammers wouldn't bother would they? |
|
14 Jul 21 - 11:06 AM (#4113333) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Stilly River Sage Even as careful as you try to be, there are so many breaches of information at companies that are supposed to keep it secure that maintaining an online security surveillance account (where they keep track of changes on your credit record, new accounts, etc.) is a good idea. I am a member of a couple of organizations that offer those services as part of membership (AAA and AARP). This is only one aspect of online privacy, but trying to prevent identity theft is something everyone needs to be aware of. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 11:27 AM (#4113336) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome Good point SRS. My virus checker does security checks but I shall have a look at dedicated ones too. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 12:03 PM (#4113338) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Charmion Interesting. My early adult life was spent in the armed forces; in fact, one consequence of turning 18 (then the age of majority here) was receipt of a Top Secret security clearance. In those days, deep in the Cold War, we who toiled for the security state were taught that we should never express an opinion we were not prepared to see on the front page, above the fold, of every newspaper in the land. Commenting "off the record" or anonymously was not an option, as most of us could be easily identified by the content of any remarks that might interest a journalist. I am known in this forum by my own quite unusual given name. Youse all could easily find me in the top three hits of the simplest Google search. Life with an unusual name has kept me honest. I don't post anything on the Internet that I think I might come to regret, and I ask advice on only the most anodyne of issues. If something I have written here, or on Facebook, or anywhere else, comes back to bite me in the arse, I am prepared to accept the consequences for I know I have nowhere to hide. I do not approve of Facebook's toleration of pseudonymous users, and I think its reluctance to moderate postings in the name of "free speech" is a disingenuous abdication of responsibility. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 12:21 PM (#4113340) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Backwoodsman ”I am known in this forum by my own quite unusual given name. Youse all could easily find me in the top three hits of the simplest Google search.” Absolutely correct, Charmion - I found you with the first hit. (It helped that I know the city you live in!). Which seems like justification of my decision to use a pseudonym here. Having lived through the ‘Folk Against Fascism’ identity thefts here and on FB, and suffered identity theft as a result of an online banking scam, I only give my true identity out to those whom I wish to have it. And that’s how it’s going to stay… |
|
14 Jul 21 - 12:54 PM (#4113341) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Charmion Evidently your mileage varies, Backwoodsman. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 01:04 PM (#4113342) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: meself I am firmly against anyone using a pseudonym. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 01:08 PM (#4113343) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Charmion Senoufou, an infestation of scammers on our landline telephone was a major factor in our decision to switch entirely to mobile phones back in 2014. When the robo-diallers eventually found us, I set my mobile to direct all callers not in my contacts list to voicemail, and telephonic serenity resumed. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 01:16 PM (#4113344) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome I am lucky to have an unusual name too and have no objection to people knowing it. I have posted it on here a number of times so anyone who wants to find it can do so. It proved of great benefit when proving that the right wing troll on here was not me when he tried to set up social media profiles as me. To prove who I was FB requested some ID which I provided. I don't see why they cannot do that when everyone sets up their own page. |
|
14 Jul 21 - 08:32 PM (#4113377) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Donuel Zuckerberg's credo at meetings was "Company over country". I figure only 1% of us are beyond the reach of hackers. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 12:26 AM (#4113388) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Stilly River Sage Robo, stop the snide renaming, please, when you post. Just ask your question. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 01:37 AM (#4113391) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: robomatic I made an association between the previous poster and the previous President because they both have a proclivity for stating things as facts without attribution. I'd prefer that someone who wants to be taken seriously (?) have a reference for his statement. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 05:39 AM (#4113401) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: JHW You don't have to use social media. I was getting dubious forwarded emails so I packed in Fbook years ago, surprisingly easy. Never tried Twitting etc. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 08:40 AM (#4113413) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Senoufou You're fortunate Charmion to have a phobile moan signal where you live. Ours is almost non-existent, so I don't possess one. And I turned off the message thingy on our landline. One of our rather fierce neighbours has put an answering message on his phone which says, "If oi dornt know yew or yer selling suffin, then F*** orf! If oi dew know yew, hello and oil speak ter yew in a woil!" I wonder if potential scammers can translate his strong Norfolk accent? |
|
15 Jul 21 - 09:41 AM (#4113418) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Charmion Sen, most scammers who try calling me have marked accents of their own. I believe that they ignore all answering messages, and react only to real live humans who can be persuaded to give up their bank credentials. I have always found Mudcat's pseudonym convention kinda quaint. I think it's a hangover from the bad old early days of the Internet, before the World Wide Web, when posting on what were then called "electronic bulletin boards" was a distinctly geekish activity indulged in by people who suddenly could pretend to be Mr Underhill, if not Strider. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 10:37 AM (#4113421) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Jos "they ignore all answering messages, and react only to real live humans" Not always. I find they often don't realise it's an answering machine, and just keep saying "Hello ... hello ... hello ..." One chap got really angry and rude, telling me [the answering machine] that I was very rude not replying to him. He gave up eventually. The trouble is they fill up the machine so that real messages don't get through. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 11:51 AM (#4113432) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Megan L People have many reasons for not wanting people to know their real name that are genuine. A woman who lives alone A man or woman who has escaped from an abusive relationship someone who gave evidence to the police about neighbours Those who have fallen victim to village pump disease I am sure if i could be bothered to give it some thought i could come up with more. Whether you like it or not many things are linked to social media now a days, if you want to find when a shop is open check their fb same with menus and the like. Should someone who may already be in a bad situation use their real name which would lead trouble to their door? for people like myself who do not get out much apart from a few friends i made here most of the people i talk to are in fb groups. Mind you the phenomenon isnt that new people have changed names for many reasons take Prince Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas of Battenberg who changed his name to distance his family from the German side of the family. It was also very common during the age of CB radio. |
|
15 Jul 21 - 09:03 PM (#4113481) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Malcolm Storey About twenty years ago (that long? yes - honest) I first encountered Mudcat and thought that it might be useful to at least quell some of the rumours that were attracted by Whitby Folk Week. At that time it seemed that most people used aliases and so when a query surfaced regarding the campsites at Whitby I posted an explanation of what the situation actually was. As was the norm at the time I posted this as "The Horse's Mouth" - a fairly easy code to break I would have thought. But no! The very next post to the thread told me I did not know what the f*** I was talking about and reiterated the garbage I had been trying to correct. That was when I stopped treating the platform seriously and got on with running the festival. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 04:10 AM (#4113499) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Steve Shaw As long as you have a reasonably recent mobile phone you don't have to fret about a poor or non-existent signal. You can use wifi calling via your internet connection. There are no catches, no app needed, perfect sound quality. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 05:42 AM (#4113506) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: JHW JHW may seem anonymous to some but I use it as it's short (some prefer short) People who know me know who it is. (I did use Cliff West posting about Whitby once, thought that was obviously made up) |
|
16 Jul 21 - 06:36 AM (#4113511) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Senoufou Steve, you're a veritable Mine of Information this morning! Husband (very technological, unlike me) uses the Wifi doodah when he's on his laptop near the (I think it's called) modem. If one of his African mates/family is online, he can ring them on his phobile moan, using Lyca pay-as-you-go. Good grief, to think we used to pop down to the red telephone kiosk with two pennies, press button A (or button B if no luck) and speak to someone. Trouble was, not many folk had a telephone in their house, so one was limited as to whom to try and contact. I did learn Semaphore in the Brownies. And my father taught me Morse Code. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 07:19 AM (#4113513) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Jon Freeman Wifi-calling seems to be dependent on network provider, package chosen with that provider and, in some cases, whether or not your phone supplied as part of a deal. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 07:35 AM (#4113514) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Steve Shaw Ah, I didn't realise that some providers don't offer it. Cheers, Jon. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 10:10 AM (#4113521) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Charmion MeganL, at the risk of boring you, may I suggest that people with good reason to be anonymous stay off the Internet, especially social media? My husband was a legal officer in the Canadian Army, specializing in defence at Court Martial, and after retirement he was a small-town criminal defence lawyer. As a member of Mudcat, he always posted under his real initials (CET), following the Cold War rule: never say or do anything in public that you're not prepared to see blared to the world. He never signed up for Facebook or any other social media platform, knowing that a too-prominent public profile would complicate his life in ways that he did not wish to manage. Everyone who works with victims of crime -- especially those leaving abusive relationships -- gives the same advice: keep your head down and stay off the Internet. No, it's not fair that they aren't safe on Facebook or Linked In, but life's like that. Incidentally, people who use Facebook for business purposes set their privacy level at "public" so non-members can see their pages. Anonymity is not the answer, for it leads to bad behaviour. The never-mentioned Martin Gibson of vile memory would not have been such a massive jerk on this forum if his offences could have been swiftly laid at his real-life door, with prejudice. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 11:14 AM (#4113528) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Stilly River Sage Ah, the bad old days! I actually got an apology from MG one time—knocked my socks off with surprise! Mostly just nastiness. There are a number of names that come to mind when bad behavior is discussed here. Senoufou, your hubby shouldn't have to pay to talk to anyone anywhere in the world, if you can set up WiFi calling. I pulled up an article from C|Net: Everything you need to know about Wi-Fi calling Curious about Wi-Fi calling and what it entails? Here's the rundown on what you need to know. Instead of using your carrier's network connection, your phone can make a voice call via a Wi-Fi network. This is the same Wi-Fi connection you have set up at home, or whatever Wi-Fi hotspot you happen to be on when you're out and about, such as at a café or library. In most ways, it's like any other phone call, and you still use regular phone numbers. I use WiFi calling for regular phone numbers in my contacts list. But when speaking to my family I often use the Messenger app (the equivalent of WhatsApp, I think - they're both owned by Facebook). The other end has to have the app also, or to be on a computer logged onto Facebook and pull up the in-Facebook Messenger app and have a web cam and mic. Google closed down the "Hangout" calls but they do other stuff (Duo, I think, is a way to call) - and they have Google Fi with all sorts of features. When my daughter spent a half-year in Japan for study abroad she rented a WiFi hotspot device to use with her phone and laptop, and we spoke regularly, voice and or video calls without any extra expense. She is able now to call friends in Japan using her home or office WiFi and speak to them on whatever system they have set up, at no cost to either. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 11:34 AM (#4113534) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Senoufou Ah, thank you for that Stilly. I'll tell him when he gets home. But I actually think, after reading your post, that he uses Lyca to ring his family when he's out of the village, and the Wifi whatsit when he's in our study at home. Since we bought several of his brothers and sisters and his old mum phobile moans, he can ring them or they him, if something urgent or important crops up. I just noticed three spam e mails in my e mail box, and one was entitled, "Hey! Wanna See My Sex Pic?" (Er .. no thank you dear. Put it away and make yourself a nice cup of tea eh?) |
|
16 Jul 21 - 01:41 PM (#4113545) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Steve Shaw According to the list in Jon's link, Lycamobile doesn't offer wi-fi calling. |
|
16 Jul 21 - 02:35 PM (#4113550) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Stilly River Sage Point taken as far as phone carriers, but there are other ways to make WiFi calls that don't involve the telephone company. They go through your Internet provider (I used to have a phone that was WiFi able but it didn't work at work because the didn't have the setup to connect with phone service that way. It was a great day when they put that in and we didn't need to leave the building to make a phone call.) |
|
19 Jul 21 - 04:51 AM (#4113771) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Dave the Gnome We use WhatsApp, Hangouts and, dare I say it, Facebook messenger for both video and audio calls. Not got into Microsoft Teams and Zoom but can use them should the need arise. We also have a Facebook portal which I must say is brilliant. |
|
19 Jul 21 - 05:56 AM (#4113775) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: JHW Hadn't spotted the phone box stuff. Admittedly 4d in old money but in the village I was brought up in if you wanted to phone you walked up to the phone box by the tip. Houses and people didn't have phones. |
|
19 Jul 21 - 06:22 AM (#4113777) Subject: RE: BS: Anonymous social media posts From: Jon Freeman There are a number of ways you can use the Internet (to which you may just happen to be connected to via wi-fi) to make audio or video calls but they are not “Wi-Fi Calling” as referred to by Seve and myself. The term is confusing but it refers to specific technologies (explained here on Wikipedia under General Access Network). Essentially, GAN allows cell phone packets to be forwarded to a network access point over the internet, rather than over-the-air using GSM/GPRS, UMTS or similar. A separate device known as a "GAN Controller" (GANC) receives this data from the Internet and feeds it into the phone network as if it were coming from an antenna on a tower. Calls can be placed from or received to the handset as if it were connected over-the-air directly to the GANC's point of presence. The system is essentially invisible to the network as a whole, GAN is used to allow UMA-compatible mobile phones to use Wi-Fi networks to connect calls, in place of conventional cell towers. This can be useful in locations with poor cell coverage where some other form of internet access is available, especially at the home or office. The system offers seamless handoff, so the user can move from cell to WiFi and back again with the same invisibility that the cell network offers when moving from tower to tower. |