For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or  
TELECOM Digest Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:53:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 449 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson How to Prepare for One Really Quick Getaway (Monty Solomon) For Victims, Repairing ID Theft Can Be Grueling (Monty Solomon) On Television, Brands Go From Props to Stars (Monty Solomon) Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone and Lipstick (Monty Solomon) Free 411 (Joseph) What is Area Code 113? (IMAFriend) Re: 10 Out of 10 For Idea; 1000 for Implementation (obsidian) Re: Linksys Site Survey Shows Info on Nearby Wireless (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Getting Rid of "Legal" Spam? (A. Berger -- Onlynux) Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours! (Garrett Wollman) Re: State of the Internet, 2005 (Wesrock@aol.com) Re: State of the Internet, 2005 (Henry) Re: Age Discrimination by Google; Old People Need Not Apply (B. Margolin) "DHCP Client Cannot Obtain an IP Address" (Patrick Townson) Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:17:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: How to Prepare for One Really Quick Getaway By DAMON DARLIN What is the first thing you will grab from your home if your house floods, catches on fire or comes tumbling down in an earthquake? Family photos? The pets? The Hummel figurines? It probably will not be your financial and medical records, the very things you will need to rebuild your life after a disaster. If you are like most people, you have documents stashed in various places throughout your home, perhaps some under lock and key. And with your mind racing as danger hits, you are not going to have the time or wherewithal to figure out which ones you need. In any case, your financial and medical records would be such a large and unwieldy pile that you would just say forget about it, grab Fluffy and scramble out of there. Indeed, that is probably your reaction any time someone suggests you get your records organized. But wait. Do not run away yet. New technology is making this tedious task less odious, and surprisingly, it is not that expensive. All told, you can secure your records in a weekend afternoon. Even better, doing all this has a wonderful side effect: it can put you in better financial shape to survive a disaster because you will end up a lot smarter about how you spend and save money. For instance, one of the first things to do is compile a list of where everything is -- account numbers and the locations of important documents. The list will help you or anyone in your family locate things you need for the insurance adjuster or relief worker. (Download a template for this information that you can place right on your computer.) This is really the "if hit by a bus" list that financial planners have been recommending you compile for your heirs. If you think of the list that way, you will be reminded of your mortality and you will not want to write it. But think of the families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita or by California wildfires, and the psychological barrier collapses. The list becomes a much easier sell now, said Brent Neiser, a director for the National Endowment for Financial Education. "It forces you to think," he said. Here is what else you have to do to protect your records and yourself: ... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/business/01docs.ready.html?ex=1285819200&en=afb8b0c8f19b21aa&ei=5090 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:25:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: For Victims, Repairing ID Theft Can Be Grueling By TOM ZELLER Jr. Paul Fairchild, a 34-year-old Web developer in Edmond, Okla., has never spent $500 on fine tobacco. He has never slaked a shoe fetish with $1,500 charges at Manolo Blahnik and Neiman Marcus, nor has he ever bought diamonds online, furs in SoHo, or anything at e-Luxury.com. He has never owned an apartment building in Brooklyn, and he has never peddled flesh. Over the last two years, however, his credit report has suggested otherwise. In retelling his ordeal with identity theft, Mr. Fairchild has developed the acid sarcasm and droll nonchalance of a standup comic - a defense mechanism, his wife, Rachel, says, that belies two years of hell. "Once this happens, you can't believe how deep the rabbit hole goes," Mr. Fairchild said. Indeed, in a year of prominent cases of stolen or lost consumer information -- from the hacking of university computers and the disappearance of backup tapes at Citigroup, to fraudulent downloads from the databases of companies like ChoicePoint and LexisNexis -- the rabbit hole seems to be getting deeper. About 10 million Americans fall victim each year to identity theft, according to the Federal Trade Commission. And in about a third of those cases, victims see far more than their existing credit card accounts tapped. Their private information is used by thieves to open new accounts, secure loans and otherwise lead parallel and often luxurious lives. For victims like Mr. Fairchild -- and two others who recounted their troubles and shared their sometimes vast paper trails -- it can be an unnerving, protracted whodunit, with collection agents demanding payment for cars they have never driven, credit card accounts they never opened, loans they never obtained, and myriad other debts accrued by shadowy versions of themselves. Prosecutions are rare, and police investigations -- when they do happen -- are time-consuming, costly and easily stymied. A 2003 study by the Gartner Inc. consulting firm suggested that an identity thief had about a 1 in 700 chance of getting caught. "It's a crime in which you can get a lot of money, and have a very low probability of ever getting caught," Mari J. Frank, a lawyer and author of several books on identity theft, said in an interview. "Criminals are now saying, Why am I using a gun?" Just how many of the millions of new cases each year stem from the widely reported cracks in the nation's electronic data troves is impossible to know. A study by Javelin Strategy and Research indicated that the most frequently reported source of stolen information, at least among those who knew how it happened, was decidedly low-tech: a lost or stolen wallet or checkbook. And some experts have suggested that consumers are much more likely to fall victim to a rogue employee -- at a doctor's office, say, or a collection agency -- than to a gang of hackers infiltrating a database. But however their information is obtained, victims are still left with the unsettling realization that the keys to their inner lives as consumers, as taxpayers, as patients, as drivers and as homeowners have been picked from their pockets and distributed among thieves. "Once it happens, you can never be certain that it won't happen again," said Beth Givens, the director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a consumer advocacy group. "You can never let your guard down." Mr. Fairchild, Kenneth Wasserman and Toshka Cargill -- each from different parts of the country and from varying economic backgrounds -- know precisely what Ms. Givens means. Their experiences with identity theft follow. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/technology/01theft.html?ex=1285819200&en=442e59c391c4c42c&ei=5090 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a good article in the New York Times Tehcnology Section, and I suggest you may want to look for it in the paper and read more of it: http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html (see tchnology section). Also I want to mention a relative of mine who has had identity theft problems in recent months. He says the bank has been on his case about a 'house he owns' (he owns no such thing) which has a mortgage payment overdue. He told them several times he was not the owner (as a result of ID theft someone bought it in _his_ name) and telling the bank is like talking to a brick wall. I suggested to him since it is 'your building' (as per the bank statement) just tell them to go ahead and foreclose on it; take it back. (wink!) It should be interesting if bank decides to do that. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:40:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: On Television, Brands Go From Props to Stars By LORNE MANLY LATER this month on "The Office," Michael Scott, the painfully clueless regional manager of a paper supply company, will embrace casual Fridays in his own inimitable style. Eager to show off his newly trim physique, particularly his backside, the character -- played by Steve Carell -- will proudly model his new jeans to his alternately befuddled and appalled employees. And to anyone who will listen, he will proclaim something along the lines of "I love my new Levi's." This cringe-inducing bit of comedy will have been made possible in part by Levi Strauss. The company and the creators of "The Office," the NBC critical darling, are willing participants in the next generation of product placement. No longer are brands mere props on the set or the supporting stars of reality shows. Advertisers and their representatives are increasingly working with a show's writers and producers and the network's ad sales staff to incorporate products into the story lines of scripted shows as part of more elaborate marketing deals. What Hollywood and Madison Avenue euphemistically call "brand integration" was hard to miss last season. Gabrielle Solis, Eva Longoria's character on ABC's "Desperate Housewives," found herself hard up for money and reluctantly agreed to don an evening gown and extol the virtues of a Buick LaCrosse at a car display. Amanda Bynes's character on the WB's "What I Like About You" raved about Fruity Pebbles and competed against a friend to be in the next Herbal Essences commercial. And the producers of "Bernie Mac" on Fox wove mentions of Rolaids throughout an episode as they unleashed the dyspeptic Mr. Mac to rant about life's injustices and his stomach pains. Network, advertising and production executives say that this season, more and more brands will venture outside the confines of 30-second ads. They may have no choice: As technology and clutter blunt the effectiveness and reach of the commercial spots that have underpinned the television business for nearly 50 years, the various players are scrambling to adapt. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/business/yourmoney/02place.html?ex=1285905600&en=232cbf3a10ec701a&ei=5090 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 21:47:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone (and Lipstick) By DAMIEN CAVE GREENWICH, Conn., Sept. 29 - When a new state driving law goes into effect here on Saturday, Will Suarez will have to put down his Treo 650 cellphone and stop digging into his briefcase while cruising Connecticut's streets and highways in his Audi sedan. The new law, one of the toughest in the nation, goes beyond just prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel. Those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can be fined $100 for any behavior that distracts them from driving -- glancing at a newspaper, typing on a BlackBerry, applying lipstick while looking in the rearview mirror or turning to yell at the kids in the back seat. It is a prospect that Mr. Suarez, 42, like many drivers across Connecticut, can hardly believe is possible. "I'm in sales, so I work out of my car a lot," he said Thursday, after driving into a parking lot here with his phone pressed against his ear. "It's an infringement of my personal freedoms." Drivers nonetheless will have to get used to it. Four years after New York passed the nation's first cellphone ban, 22 states and Washington have limited cellphone use while driving. And in the last year, many of those states have gone beyond merely regulating cellphone use among drivers, cracking down on distractions inside cars. Tennessee and Virginia, going further than most, have passed laws prohibiting the display of pornographic videos in vehicles. In Nevada, lawmakers recently increased penalties for drivers who kill someone while eating, putting on makeup or using a cellphone. In Washington, district lawmakers have banned driving while "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo" or while playing video games. At least a half-dozen other states, including Alaska, Louisiana, Delaware and Wisconsin, are considering bans on activities that pull drivers' attention away from the road. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/nyregion/01cell.html?ex=1285819200&en=29aaf3a7b8603881&ei=5090 ------------------------------ From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> Subject: Free 411 Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:43:30 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com New ad supported directory assistance. 1-800-FREE-411 (1-800-373-3411) Before the number is given you have to listen to a ten second advertisement. The service also has auto connect to the number given. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried it, it is a national service, handled as much as possible by interactive voice recordings. But their voice recognition software does not seem to be very good. After three or four attempts to find out what I wanted "a radio station, KOSN in Stillwater, OK" it gave up and transferred me to an operator. PAT] ------------------------------ From: IMAFriend <imafriend@sbcglobal.net> Subject: What is Area Code 113? Date: 2 Oct 2005 15:59:36 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com I keep getting a phone call from area code 113. Does anyone have any idea what that is? Thanks, DougB [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is bogus, as far as 'area codes' are concerned. It is either some sort of number for special billing purposes, or a deliberatly misprogrammed entry as is sometimes done by companies such as telemarketing firms or collection agencies to prevent you from knowing their real number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: obsidian <obsidian@vlanderen.terra.sol> Subject: Re: 10 Out of 10 For Idea; 1000 for Implementation Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:23:30 +0200 Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- Coming from UK to France on the Eurostar train, unleashes a flood of SMS messages (with accompanying audible alerts) to each GSM to the like of "Bienvenue aux reseaux xxx". Bloody annoying! And unnecessary since we _know_ we are in France. obsidian Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:telecom24.443.7@telecom-digest.org: > I was driving down I-95 today from Philly to Baltimore, and for most > of the time my GSM phone (which is on Fido/Rogers out of Canada) was > showing that it was on AT&T Wireless as the carrier. As I came past > the airport, it switched over to showing T-Mobile as the carrier. A > few seconds later I received a text message from T-Mobile (subject is > "905") welcoming me to the USA and telling me to dial home use 011- or > "+" and the number. > Its nice to see that T-Mobile is looking for non-US phones and letting > you know what to do to "call home", but it isn't set to deal with > region 1 phones, as to call back to Toronto from Philly on T-Mobile, > you definitely wouldn't dial 011 to start the call. > Perhaps someone from T-Mobile will see this and tweak their system so > it doesn't send this to Canadian phones when roaming in the USA. > Chris ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Linksys Site Survey Shows Lots of Info on Nearby Wireless Networks Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:16:02 UTC Organization: Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article <telecom24.448.6@telecom-digest.org>, William Warren <william_warren_nonoise@speakeasy.net> wrote: > Pat, the reason those "in the know" about WEP and its weaknesses don't > like to talk about it is that we sometimes use it for our customers. > The problem is that WPA, although it has much better security, is > notoriously hard to get running, especially between nodes made by > different manufacturers. I've had occasions where I promised to > encrypt a customer's WiFI network and was forced to use WEP rather > than admit I couldn't get WPA to function. This strikes me as gross, willful negligence -- with an attempt to conceal the same from your client ("rather than admit I couldn't get WPA to function"). If one of your clients suffers for it, I think it would be entirely just for you to suffer the consequences. Real network security professionals do not behave as described above. William, please don't tar us all with the sticky brush of your own behavior. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky ------------------------------ From: A. Berger -- Onlynux <andresberger@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Getting Rid of "Legal" Spam? Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:29:00 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com To get multiple email addresses you only need a domain and hosting and you can get both for $29 per year. After this, you can create unlimited aliases for free and if you follow this system (and some other recommendations) for spam prevention you will never receive automated spam and very few "legal" spam. Regards, Andres Berger Garcia Director Onlynux.com Parque Leoncio Prado 285. Magdalena. Lima, Peru Telefax: (511) 261-3760 http://www.onlynux.com -- email: aberger@onlynux.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> escribió en el mensaje news:telecom24.438.6@telecom-digest.org: > A. Berger -- Onlynux wrote: >> The best way to get rid of spam is always give an email alias to >> everybody, this way all people will have a different email address and >> when you want to stop the spammer simply delete the alias, also you >> will know for sure who the spammer is. > I do not have the resources to get multiple email addresses. > Indeed, it would be inconvenient to use different addresses every time > I did e-business. Usually a company will send a confirmation memo, so > I would have to keep careful track of multiple addresses. Too much > trouble. > Anyway, all of my e-business so far (the little I do since I avoid it) > has not had a problem until this particular time. As mentioned, this > is not some little fly-by-night outfit, but a large ongoing business. > Someone mentioned "Yahoo" offers 'free' email. Are these hard to get? > Do you have to give information to Yahoo to get one? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To get a free Yahoo mailbox all you > need to do is go to http://yahoo.com and sign up for one, plus answer > a few simple questions which are mainly for security purposes. You > will have an opportunity at that point to sign up for 'enhanced' service > features (re the amount of space alloted, spam filtering, etc, which > you can either accept or decline. I have a couple of their mailboxes, > and they come in handy. You'll also have an opportunity to sign up for > features like Yahoo Groups ( a sort of newsgroup thing; this Digest > has a 'group' there), My Yahoo (a home page with news headlines that > you choose to format as desired), Yahoo Messenger (which is free group > or one-on-one chat), Yahoo Personals (romanticly-oriented personal > ads, this last feature is not totally free, you pay to transmit and > receive email of a more personal nature.) Yahoo has a lot of good > features, all mostly advertiser supported. You do have to give some > information, as noted above, mostly for security verification > purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours! Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:58:46 +0000 (UTC) Organization: MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory In article <telecom24.447.5@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For the life of me, I do not understand > why United States insists on keeping total control of Internet for > itself, rather than at least sharing control with other countries. I do not understand why the United States Government remains under the illusion that it has any such thing. > I mean, just consider how much spam, scam, illegitimate advertising, > viruses, spyware, etc -- in aggregate total about half of the > internet -- ICANN has fostered since its inception. I also do not understand why PAT remains under the illusion that ICANN has anything whatsoever to do with any of these things. Is NANPA responsible for the sleazy MCI marketing campaigns of yesteryear? -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every wollman@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those | search for greater freedom. of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will try to explain this once again. To say "United States has control of the internet" is a short way of making a longer statement, to wit: "The internet is controlled to a large extent by the 'root servers'; the computers which direct the requests for connections to one place or another. Since the 'root servers' are by and large in the United States, or under the supervision of the United States, therefore, for all intents and purposes the internet is controlled by the United States." Only instead of making that longer statement, we often times just abbreviate it by saying, "United States has control of the internet". Yes, there are exceptions to that, but they are inconsequential. When we say "ICANN runs the internet" that also is a short way of telling a longer story, to wit: "Every person or company or organization in the United States who wishes to have an internet address in one of the traditional suffixes for addresses such as '.com', '.org', '.net' or others is required to deal not only with an ISP or a registrar to obtain the desired address (that is, if they wish to have recognition of that address and some way for others to see their pages or reach them by email), but they must also agree in writing to a very one-sided 'contract' presented to them by ICANN and make an annual extortion payment required by ICANN which goes to fund the overseas trips and other friviolities in which ICANN engages itself. If you fail to sign the required one-sided contract and/or fail to make your annual extortion payments then you do _NOT_ get your domain name (in effect a domain name allows for two way conversation with the outside world.) This contract you are required by ICANN to sign tells about all of ICANN's rights; how _they_ if they choose to do so can revoke your right to use the name, and the rules _you_ have to follow. Of course it has nothing to say about you having any rights such as the right to be free of others sending spam or scam or viruses or the right to protect your domain name except through some sort of feeble arbitration which they (ICANN) control. Basically, when you deal -- as you must! -- with ICANN in order to be on the net, you do it their way or you don't do it at all. And no, NANPA is or was not responsible for the sleaze which oozes out from MCI each day, since NANPA never required any contracts pertaining to behavior of its users the way ICANN does. ICANN _could_ have written contracts for users with some protections for users built in if they had wanted to, but Vint Cerf did not and does not want that to happen. So when we make the statement "ICANN controls Internet", that is a short form of the longer proceeding paragraph. If NANPA were to require contracts from users -- telco or otherwise -- which outlined standards of behavior required (**as ICANN could do if they were anything other than a tool of big business**) then in that case, yes, NANPA would have some responsibilty for MCI's sleazy activities. So before you take umbrage or exception to the statements "United States controls Internet" or "Internet is controlled by ICANN" go back and fill in the blanks _entirely_ with the realities of life. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:01:55 EDT Subject: Re: State of the Internet, 2005 In a message dated 10/1/05 14:28:36 EDT14:28:36 EDT, editor@telecom-digest.org writes: > Hoaxes, rumors and urban legends > Bill Gates is giving away free money! Muggers at malls are using > perfume to render victims unconscious! A cafe at an upscale department > store charged a woman $250 for a cookie recipe! Urban legends like > these make the rounds of inboxes every day, and every day someone is > duped into believing the rumor and forwarding it. > According to Snopes.com, which identifies and tracks urban legends, > the Bill Gates rumor, which began making the rounds in 1997, is still > the most circulated urban legend on the Internet. > Experts advise checking your facts before forwarding messages to your > friends and family. Want to know if an item is true? Check out one of > the many Web sites devoted to investigating and debunking urban myths > and legends. Urban legends far predate the internet. The hoax or urban legend about the Neiman-Marcus restaurant charging $250 for a cookie recipe goes back at least a generation or two before the internet. > Chain letters > "Forward this message to 10 people and DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!" the > writer implores. Messages like these have been pouring into inboxes since > the inception of e-mail -- taking the old-fashioned chain letter from the > post office to cyberspace. Chain letters are a particularly annoying form of > spam because they often come from friends and promise negative consequences > for not forwarding the message (bad luck or a lost chance at riches, for > example). > Choosing to forward a message, however, could get you in trouble. Many > people don't know it is illegal to start or forward an e-mail chain letter > that promises any kind of return. Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for > mail fraud. Chain letters were common at least as far back as the Depression years (1930s) and were just as illegal then, proliferating by U.S. mail. > Phishing: > The messages look official, down to the spoofed e-mail addresses in > the from line, but if the message asks for personal information such > as credit card or Social Security numbers, chances are it's a > fake. Phishing schemes trick users into revealing personal > information, and scammers use this data to steal the identities of > their victims. > A 2004 study by the Internet Crime Complaint Center found that e-mail > and Web pages are the two primary ways in which fraudulent contact > takes place. The Federal Trade Commission recommends avoiding filling > out forms that come in e-mail messages and that users never e-mail > personal or financial information. Studies focusing not just on the internet but on the world as whole indicate that stealing personal information by other means, especially "dumpster diving" and other stealing of information on paper or by personal contact are seven or eight times more prevalent than fraud by "phishing." Frauds and annoyances did not start with the internet. The internet just provided another medium for carrying them out. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite correct that all of these evils did not begin with internet; all the internet did was increase their velocity; make them easier to pull off and remain aloof from where punishment is concerned. And I was one of the first people, twenty or so years ago, when people -- parents let's say -- were fussing about the junk on the internet and how their kids were getting 'more educated and mature' (to put it politely) than was appropriate for their ages to defend the internet. I told people, if you can get the information in a library, then there is no reason you ought not to be able to get it on the internet. Of course, the catch was, no one would go to the library and spend hours in dusty stacks and shelves looking for material not age appropriate when they could spend five minutes or less and a few key strokes to get the same information, and I _still_ feel that way; but even the library does not allow folks to just walk in and deface the place, leave junk all over, as people to willingingly on the internet these days. PAT] ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: State of the Internet, 2005 Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:24:40 +0300 Organization: Elisa Internet customer TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: > A look at the internet as it stands now, in 2005, from a compilation > originally prepared by CNN.com: > Chain letters > "Forward this message to 10 people and DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!" the > writer implores. Messages like these have been pouring into inboxes since > the inception of e-mail -- taking the old-fashioned chain letter from the > post office to cyberspace. Chain letters are a particularly annoying form of > spam because they often come from friends and promise negative consequences > for not forwarding the message (bad luck or a lost chance at riches, for > example). > Choosing to forward a message, however, could get you in trouble. Many > people don't know it is illegal to start or forward an e-mail chain letter > that promises any kind of return. Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for > mail fraud. 'Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for mail fraud.' ??? How can that possibly be correct? First of all, it suggests that the post office has some sort of jurisdiction over e-mail, which it clearly does not (mail fraud is investigated by postal inspectors). But secondly, '_anyone_ doing so...' is preposterously Americano-centric. Cheers, Henry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't think other countries besides the United States have laws against postal fraud; that postal fraud/ other crimes involving the mail and the investigation of same is purely an American custom? Many countries investigate it intensively. Even Nigeria has laws against postal fraud. Further, American postal inspectors at least, have claimed jurisdiction over certain kinds of email fraud, as well they should. The United States takes the position -- and has been backed up in court a few times -- that _you_ need not make a deposit in a a mail receptacle to commit fraud, nor remove something from a mail receptacle; *inducing someone else to do so as part of a fraud scheme* makes you culpable. For example, you fill out an application on line for some product or another, but do so fraudulently, and as a result, some innocent third person person puts something in the mail to you or to someone else. Postal inspectors claim if even some small portion of the transaction takes place via US Mail and there was fraud involved, then the rest of the transaction -- even the 90 percent or better which was handled totally 'online' comes under their jurisdiction as well. Here is an example: I go on line and give your email name, real name and street address for a magazine subscription. The magazine arrives, the publisher in good faith asks you to pay for it. I committed fraud by causing that to happen. Postal inspectors can investigate it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Age Discrimination by Google; Old People Need Not Apply for Work Organization: Symantec Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:23:00 -0400 In article <telecom24.448.2@telecom-digest.org>, Associated Press News Wire <ap@telecom-digest.org> wrote: > Google Prevails in Age Discrimination Suit > A California judge has sided with Google Inc. in an age discrimination > lawsuit filed by a former manager who alleged the online search engine > leader had fired him because he didn't fit in with the company's > youthful culture. What's with the clearly biased subject line of the posting? The article says that the court found that Google does *not* practice age discrimination. How does that translate into "Old People Need Not Apply"? Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess not everyone agrees with the judge's decision in that ruling, particularly when the man's supervisor _did_ make the statement (to the terminated employee) "You do not fit in the youthful culture here at Google." PAT] ------------------------------ From: ptownson <ptownson@telecom-digest.org> Subject: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:00:00 CDT Help wanted: I have a laptop computer here running Win NT from 1997. I have a NetGear Wireless card in a slot. It seems to be correctly installed; that is, the drivers are there, the little green light on the 'television icon' is present, it _says_ it has a very good link, and should be working fine. But the laptop reports "The DHCP client could not obtain an IP address". Furthermore, no one else on the network can see the laptop. The laptop cannot connect to the internet nor see anyone else on tne network either. Yet it claims the link is present and very strong. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? Why is it unable to obtain an IP address via DHCP? Thanks for the help. PAT ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm- unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308 and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35 credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including data, video, and voice networks. The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning. Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at 405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at http://www.mstm.okstate.edu ************************ In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V24 #449 ****************************** | |