|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 52 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:04:10 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <vsOfn.489$e%2.472@newsfe08.iad>
Bill Horne wrote:
..
>
> As I said, people are funny.
>
> Bill Horne
>
Funny is just one of their (our) many, many attributes. I presume you
mean funny as in 'peculiar', not as in 'ha ha'.
One of my friends has refused to use pay stations for many years
predicated primarily on the fact they are repositories of all kinds of
diseases, and in particular around many parts of Southern California,
they could be really bad third-world afflictions, such as treatment
resistant tuberculosis. His point is not without merit.
As to the use of the telephone when I was a child, our town near Los
Agneles was afflicted with a backwater independant. We didn't get
automatic dail equipment until 1950. (LA already had some 5XBAR by that
time.)
It went without saying that long distance was a last resort. But, my
mother did not like using the phone for local calls because she felt she
should save her burden on the "hapless" local operators for very good
reasons. She would usually drive to town (2 miles) to inquire of
merchants rather than bothering the operators.
And, there was the one candlestick phone in a recess in the hall that
the builder had placed there for that purpose.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The town where I grew up - Dedham, Massachusetts - didn't get dial
service until the late 1950's: I can still recall answering the phone
and hearing a woman telling me "this phone is now dial" before my
mother came and grabbed the handset, so I must have been pretty young.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:45:19 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <76b7cfa4-4424-4d41-a007-00de2eb1912c@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 20, 5:04 am, Sam Spade <s...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The town where I grew up - Dedham, Massachusetts - didn't get dial
> service until the late 1950's: I can still recall answering the
> phone and hearing a woman telling me "this phone is now dial" before
> my mother came and grabbed the handset, so I must have been pretty
> young.
I believe two suburbs of Philadelphia, Upper Darby and Willow Grove,
didn't get dial until circa 1962.
Santa Catalina Island, California, was the last Bell System location
to get dial. They shipped then trucked a modular small-sized ESS (No.
2?) to the site, apparently due to the terrain it was difficult. I
don't know what the last sizable Independent served town to go dial
was. Due to the high labor cost of providing an operator 24/7
regardless of traffic, many small isolated areas went dial earlier
than larger areas.
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:56:18 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <fN6dnRpzp-z_wOLWnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <6645152a1002182027m45c2003bwe3b66d73b81983ba@mail.gmail.com>,
John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:38 AM, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> As mentioned, they have a legal right to monitor all telephone calls
>> in and out of a facility except attorney-client.
>>
>> There were several newspaper reports of studies on this issue. It is
>> a fact of life that extensive monitoring is required to deter
>> criminal activity such as gangs and drug running directed by prison
>> inmates. The gangs are growing and are particularly vicious; they
>> make the Corleone's 'family business' look like at kitty-cat. It is
>> a serious problem.
>
> Every now and then I hear a report of a gang member in a Texas
> prison ordering a hit from his prison cell. Is this by cell phone?
> Letter? Unmonitored call?
The authoritative answer to that is "by any means available to send a
message out". <grin>
Methodologies use include:
* Face-to-face with a 'trusteed' visitor,
* Having a visitor -- possibly legal counsel -- 'relay' a message to a
third party -- a message that contains a 'secret' (from the person
doing the relaying) meaning.
* Passing a similar 'secret' message in a monitored phone call.
"Smuggling" a letter out -- so that the normal inspection by prison
staff is bypassed.
> What about prisoners who speak something other than English or
> Spanish?
For any 'standard' language there are obvious solutions.
> Will the prison have someone on staff to monitor?
There are two functions to 'monitoring' prison calls.
1) There is a LIMITED list of persons on the outside that a
prisoner is allowed to have contact with. A big part of the
monitoring function is to ensure that they communicate with those
people, and those people *only*. Towards that end, both the
caller and the called party have to speak a language the
'operator' understands while setting up the call, and getting the
'right' person on the other end. After that, it is simply a
matter of ensuring that the only voices on the call are those
that were heard initially. For that it doesn't really matter
what language they speak.
2) A very much secondary function is listening in for anything
that could be called 'inappropriate'. The calls are all
_recorded_, as well as being listened to in real-time, and (if
indicated by 'after the fact' events) an expert can be found to
provide a translation. This fails when the parties to the call
are speaking a 'private' argot -- for example, a gang's 'private
language', used only among gang members. It sounds like they're
saying one thing, but the 'real' message is something totally
different. It is, for obvious reasons, nearly impossible to find
a 'trustworthy' source to translate that argot. Let alone a
'second opinion' to ensure the accuracy of the first translation.
> It doesn't sound like a very robust system to me, but I'm not an
> expert. :-)
It doesn't prevent all disallowed things from happening, although
it is quite effective at preventing a lot of proscribed activities.
And, for the things it doesn't prevent, there is an 'audit trail'
for "after the fact" examination.
It's not a perfect solution, but it is far better than whatever is
in second place. <wry grin>
A while back (_very_ roughly 20 years ago) several senior members of a
very rough/tough Chicago-area gang (The "Blackstone Rangers"??) were
tried for conducting various ongoing criminal operations -- drug
dealing, beatings, and some murders -- while incarcerated. The
'reliability' of the "translation" of their private argot was a
-major- issue at trial.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:23:04 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <MPG.25e949d32d07c748989c90@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <4bvqn5tmh36tkvfsa2ljkn8b12mncuhbo6@4ax.com>,
bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com says...
> The only way to do that is weld them inside a steel box - which
> isn't necessarily a bad idea for a Super Max Prison.
Or do it as they do for an MRI machine. Just one big Farraday cage.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:13:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <hlou71$nbp$1@reader2.panix.com>
In <MPG.25e949d32d07c748989c90@news.eternal-september.org> T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> writes:
>In article <4bvqn5tmh36tkvfsa2ljkn8b12mncuhbo6@4ax.com>,
>bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com says...
>> The only way to do that is weld them inside a steel box - which
>> isn't necessarily a bad idea for a Super Max Prison.
> Or do it as they do for an MRI machine. Just one big Farraday cage.
Or ... we can use pretty much any of the abandoned (or partially shut
down) mine shafts that sit all over the country. Some of them were
pretty well equipped during our concern over the "mine shaft gap" with
the Russkies.
A dozen feet, or a hundred.. of dirt, concrete, and stone does a
pretty good job of blocking radio signals.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:23:46 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <MPG.25e949fc7120280f989c91@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <5ae4.732b1338.38aeaf77@aol.com>, Wesrock@aol.com says...
>
> In a message dated 2/17/2010 8:58:55 PM Central Standard Time,
> kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net writes:
>
>> Here is a solution for places like churches, et al. Put in little
>> cubbyholes in the vestibule. Eveybody places their device in the
>> cubbhole before services and retrieves after service.
>
> It will be stolen, as almost anything left in the vestibule will be
> from time to time.
So much for the morality of the religious I suppose. Just tell people
to leave them at home in that case.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Maybe those who steal from a church vestibule are addicts who can't
plan beyond their next dose, or innocent children who see a
chrome-covered gewgaw lying around, or impressionable young adults who
need to learn that having a device is not nearly so important as
earning it, and that trust is a lot easier to lose than to gain.
If nothing else, a church is supposed to be a place where attendees
can think about something besides their daily concerns: perhaps even a
place where they can shrug off the loss of a tool and hope that God
has a better purpose in mind both for it and for them.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:40:55 -0800
From: Bruce L. Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <ud2vn5hgmr1nagkmv1djb956d43qm95vda@4ax.com>
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:10:14 +1100, David Clayton
<dcstar@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:18:19 +0000, David Lesher wrote:
>.......
>> One thing the microcell approach will do is immediately alert staff
>> if a phone goes live "inside" the area.
>
> Assuming you have a "microcell" for every potential wireless type
> available now and in the past.
They can try and fire up an old Analog Cellphone or IMTS - but if
there are no base stations out there to connect to...
> People could replace the insides of handsets so that something that
> may look like an innocuous modern GSM handset on the outside could
> well operate on something totally different and go undetected by
> equipment "assuming" that it is a normal phone.
>
> Big can of worms here.........
Heck, they could try using any Business or Ham or GMRS or Public
Safety radio frequency. Get a kid's 49-MHz walkie-talkie, or a set of
baby monitors, or even get up on the unlicensed bands for Radio
Control Airplanes or wireless microphones.
But it's trivial to rig up a spectrum analyzer to run automatically,
trigger on *any strong unknown RF source* that pops up, and analyze
it. Put the resources of the "No Such Agency" spooks behind it.
Any out-of-band signals that pop up and are not on the exclusion
list (prison security radio frequencies, television IF frequencies,
etc.) get captured and logged, a multiple receiver system outside the
building can automatically triangulate the source.
And a broadband receiver can home in on the signal, rotate through
the modulation possibilities to ID the type signal (AM, FM, SSB,
DSBSC, CDMA, TDMA, etc.) and let you listen in.
Even if you can't ID the exact source or break an encrypted signal,
you know where it is coming from physically. Go toss that cell, and
the ones around it.
A sensitive enough spectrum analyzer could probably pick up on a
spread-spectrum frequency hopping system. If they are hopping a fixed
list of (say) 100 frequencies, the random blip they caught will repeat
again every minute or two, and the rest of the fragments constituting
that broadcast will most likely be in the same radio band.
Computers have infinite patience, they will search till they get
enough samples to triangulate on.
The first installation would be extremely expensive to develop and
debug, with three shifts of full-time engineers monitoring it. Only a
SuperMax with high value prisoners would be worth the effort.
The fiftieth install using debugged off-the-shelf gear and software
and just "Plug it in, power it up, and go" won't be all that bad. And
by the time they get that far they can administrate all fifty systems
remotely from one national control center.
--<< Bruce >>--
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's unlikely that any prison administrator would advocate such a
plan, or seek the needed budget and personnel to make it viable. Think
about it: saying that a prison needs to spend $BIG_BUX to prevent the
inmates from talking on a cell/FRS/whatever radio is, in effect, an
admission that the prison staff is powerless to prevent those devices
from being smuggled into the prison in the first place.
Of course, there's the technical issue: prisons aren't designed to
make RF Direction-finding easy, and a spectrum analyzer is not able to
isolate a transmitter to a single cell, even if it was a "point
source" that never moved and had a uniform signal-strength pattern,
without a cell-by-cell test that just isn't going to happen.
That's not even to mention that the kind of people who are competent
at operating a spectrum analyzer are not likely to be competent at
working inside a prison: their equipment would be covered in feces
within minutes of it's purpose becoming known, and they'd have to
concentrate on direction-finding while the inmates were threatening
their families with horrible fates should they succeed.
Sorry, Bruce, no offense, but this idea needs to go back to the
drawing board.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:11:48 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone
Message-ID: <op.u8eq9yn3o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:53:43 -0500, <Wesrock@aol.com> wrote:
>... [snip] ...
>
> Of course, the postal service will not let you talk to your local post
> office and many big multi-branch banks won't either, only an 800
> number.
Learn your local USPS P.O. phone number:
* Visit http://www.usps.com ,
* Click on LOCATE A POST OFFICE .
* Get "Post Office Location" to display in the What Are You Looking
For box, fill in appropriate ZIP code and state abbreviation, click
Search.
Ignore the (800) ASK-USPS suggestion, and, below it, click "More info".
In most cases, you'll get the local number for that P.O.
HTH.
Cheers,
- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:27:38 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <MPG.25e94ae18f855f9989c92@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <hliile$3u1$1@reader2.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com says...
>
> In <pan.2010.02.18.03.45.44.617799@myrealbox.com> David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> writes:
>
> > How many hotel chains are now regreting the decades ripping-off
> > guests with exorbitant outgoing call costs which basically
> > kick-started the business mobile phone industry as an alternative?
>
> > Talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", I wonder how much
> > revenue hotels get now from guests using their own phones now that
> > virtually everyone has a mobile?
>
> There's a similar issue now going on with WiFI internet access. Just
> about all hotels phased it in in the past five years. (Which is pretty
> fast and amazing...).
>
> When it started being possible, many initially charge an extra five
> dollars or so in order to give you the password. Now, though, with the
> vast majority providing the service for "free" (that is, no additional
> charge), the ones that still try a surcharge are losing customers.
>
> I personally have told hotels that I refused to do business (or
> further business) with them.
>
> (There will be some that will manage to pull it off due to their
> unique circumstances - if, for example, they're the only one for 50
> miles... or if their market niche is sufficiently esoteric).
>
> So it's pretty rare, at least in the US, for WiFi to carry a surcharge
> anymore.
Back a couple years ago I was stuck at Dulles airport. They charge for
use of WiFi.
What I find interesting though is that the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority has now rolled out WiFi on ALL of it's
commuter rail cars. That's too sweet for words.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:35:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <hlpkja$9hb$1@reader2.panix.com>
T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> writes:
> Back a couple years ago I was stuck at Dulles airport. They charge
> for use of WiFi.
>
> What I find interesting though is that the Massachusetts Bay
> Transportation Authority has now rolled out WiFi on ALL of it's
> commuter rail cars. That's too sweet for words.
Irony ^2. Another [Massachusetts] state agency, MassPort, fought free
WiFi at Logan airport [in Boston] for *years*, attacking Continental
Airlines for providing it. They claimed everything from free WiFi was
interfering with TSA, going to cause crashes & to it was causing
teen-age acne & pregnancy....wait, they forgot that one. Somehow, they
never said "It's costing us customers on our WiFi $y$tem..."
MassPort was shot down in flames by the FCC in late 2006.
Now, suddenly they seem to have gotten religion and embraced free
WiFi. I hope Planned Parenthood is busy with a rear-guard action.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:46:40 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <3btvn5ls0ucq6q9okgor9eicflj26ds4n2@4ax.com>
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:27:23 -0800, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
wrote:
>On 2/19/2010 11:39 AM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> The [Guardian] article is very clear here (with "it" being the lawsuit):
>>
>> It claims that since the laptops were used by students and their friends
>> and family at home, images of "compromising or embarrassing positions,
>> including ... in various states of undress" have been captured.
>>
>> In other words, they captured pictures of [near-]naked children in their
>> homes and this can be construed to be child pornography though it's not
>> clear that's the point of the lawsuit.
>>
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> I read it differently: there's a lot of reference to the lawsuit, but
>> few specifics, and the publication never accusses the school district
>> of using the capability, only of having the capability.
>>
>> I'd expect a lot more media attention on this issue if there was a
>> more definite bases for an accusation: after all, spying is illegal,
>> isn't it?
>
>Definitely. And here's the actual text of the lawsuit [17p, 627 KB]
>
>http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
>
>Another (short) article is here:
>
>http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> The lawsuit is a lot more clear than the original news report, and I
> agree that the lawsuit alleges the school did deliberately use the
> webcams in students' laptops to spy on them without their knowledge.
>
> The only puzzle at this point is why a "60 Minutes" crew isn't
> knocking down the doors at that school department. If these
> allegations are true, then the insurance carrier that bonded the
> school in question is about to take a major loss.
This situation has been on the local news around here a lot. Today's
revelations:
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/all-a11_spying.7184291feb20,0,5595885.story
It seems that the school district has admitted to remotely activating
the web cams, but only to locate stolen laptops (right...).
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
***** Moderator's Note *****
If the allegations are correct, this is a game-changing shift in our
social paradigm. I find it hard to believe that any high-school
administrator would even consider using such a capability, let alone
the charge that one of them called a student into a school office and
scolded him for something he's alleged to have done in his bedroom
inside his home.
I just can't get past the "what were they thinking" question: I could
say it's obvious that (again, if these allegations are correct) they
weren't thinking, but it's too hard to accept that. These are, by
definition, pillars of society; men and women who are expected to set
the proper example for how adults are supposed to behave.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:19:55 -0500
From: Eric Tappert <e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <58d0o5pg7lnkgif7spi5gte7gaj4flvkf4@4ax.com>
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:46:40 -0500, Eric Tappert
<e.tappert.spamnot@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:27:23 -0800, Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2/19/2010 11:39 AM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The [Guardian] article is very clear here (with "it" being the lawsuit):
>>>
>>> It claims that since the laptops were used by students and their friends
>>> and family at home, images of "compromising or embarrassing positions,
>>> including ... in various states of undress" have been captured.
>>>
>>> In other words, they captured pictures of [near-]naked children in their
>>> homes and this can be construed to be child pornography though it's not
>>> clear that's the point of the lawsuit.
>>>
>>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>>
>>> I read it differently: there's a lot of reference to the lawsuit, but
>>> few specifics, and the publication never accusses the school district
>>> of using the capability, only of having the capability.
>>>
>>> I'd expect a lot more media attention on this issue if there was a
>>> more definite bases for an accusation: after all, spying is illegal,
>>> isn't it?
>>
>>Definitely. And here's the actual text of the lawsuit [17p, 627 KB]
>>
>>http://craphound.com/robbins17.pdf
>>
>>Another (short) article is here:
>>
>>http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html
>>
>>
>>***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>
>> The lawsuit is a lot more clear than the original news report, and I
>> agree that the lawsuit alleges the school did deliberately use the
>> webcams in students' laptops to spy on them without their knowledge.
>>
>> The only puzzle at this point is why a "60 Minutes" crew isn't
>> knocking down the doors at that school department. If these
>> allegations are true, then the insurance carrier that bonded the
>> school in question is about to take a major loss.
>
> This situation has been on the local news around here a lot. Today's
> revelations:
>
> http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/all-a11_spying.7184291feb20,0,5595885.story
>
> It seems that the school district has admitted to remotely activating
> the web cams, but only to locate stolen laptops (right...).
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> If the allegations are correct, this is a game-changing shift in our
> social paradigm. I find it hard to believe that any high-school
> administrator would even consider using such a capability, let
> alone the charge that one of them called a student into a school
> office and scolded him for something he's alleged to have done in
> his bedroom inside his home.
>
> I just can't get past the "what were they thinking" question: I
> could say it's obvious that (again, if these allegations are
> correct) they weren't thinking, but it's too hard to accept
> that. These are, by definition, pillars of society; men and women
> who are expected to set the proper example for how adults are
> supposed to behave.
Bill,
The "inappropriate behavior" apparently was popping some candy that
looked like pills, thus the school thought there was a drug
connection. That gets schools way out of joint.
As for the spying question, these administrators have LOTS of
explaining to do and, hopefully, will eventually do jail time. Note
that they have already admitted that they used the webcams on the
laptops 42 times in the last 14 months.
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:40:22 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <c0650047-9954-44be-90e8-110da0587932@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 20, 9:46 am, the Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> If the allegations are correct, this is a game-changing shift in our
> social paradigm. I find it hard to believe that any high-school
> administrator would even consider using such a capability, let alone
> the charge that one of them called a student into a school office and
> scolded him for something he's alleged to have done in his bedroom
> inside his home.
The school district has responded to the charges by vehemently
insisting that the laptop cameras were never used to spy on students.
There were to be only used in case the laptops were reported stolen or
lost, so to identify the thief (and that is a legal use).
It was reported that a signal light glows when the camera is in use,
and, the signal light malfunctions in that it glows randomly (they
demonstrated that on the TV news). Thus, some students may think
they're being monitored when in fact they're not.
I personally find it extremely hard to believe that a school
administrator would make use of such a system to spy on students as
the lawsuit claims.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:17:53 -0800
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <hlp5g1$79q$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 10:03 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 11:08 AM, Monty Solomon wrote:
>>
>>> A school district in Pennsylvania spied on students through web
>>> cameras installed on laptops provided by the district, according to a
>>> class action lawsuit filed this week.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> But unbeknown to the students, the district retained remote control
>>> of the built-in webcams installed on the computers - and used them to
>>> capture images of the students, according to a lawsuit filed in
>>> federal court this week.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/19/schools-spied-on-students-webcams
>> The article doesn't make it clear whether the school was acting on a
>> picture the student had voluntarily taken, or if the school was
>> activating the remote camera capability without the student's knowledge.
>> [...]
>
> Uh, sometimes the obvious is overlooked. The paragraph between the two
> "snip" markers above states use of remote control to capture images of the students.
>
> The article is very clear here (with "it" being the lawsuit):
>
> It claims that since the laptops were used by students and their friends
> and family at home, images of "compromising or embarrassing positions,
> including ... in various states of undress" have been captured.
>
> In other words, they captured pictures of [near-]naked children in their
> homes and this can be construed to be child pornography though it's not
> clear that's the point of the lawsuit.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I read it differently: there's a lot of reference to the lawsuit, but
> few specifics, and the publication never accusses the school district
> of using the capability, only of having the capability.
>
> I'd expect a lot more media attention on this issue if there was a
> more definite bases for an accusation: after all, spying is illegal,
> isn't it?
I see a problem on winning the lawsuit, it appears that the computers
are owned by the school district, that could mean that they have a
right to monitor what the computers are used for. I don't agree with
that, but I have always used my own Laptop because the companies I
have worked for have the right to monitor usage.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:41:20 -0600
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
Message-ID: <zsidnVsoa7a97h3WnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <4B7EE8EB.1020400@thadlabs.com>,
Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>On 2/19/2010 10:03 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 11:08 AM, Monty Solomon wrote:
>>
>>> A school district in Pennsylvania spied on students through web
>>> cameras installed on laptops provided by the district, according to a
>>> class action lawsuit filed this week.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> But unbeknown to the students, the district retained remote control
>>> of the built-in webcams installed on the computers - and used them to
>>> capture images of the students, according to a lawsuit filed in
>>> federal court this week.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/19/schools-spied-on-students-webcams
>>
>> The article doesn't make it clear whether the school was acting on a
>> picture the student had voluntarily taken, or if the school was
>> activating the remote camera capability without the student's knowledge.
>> [...]
>
> Uh, sometimes the obvious is overlooked. The paragraph between the two
> "snip" markers above states use of remote control to capture images of the
> students.
>
> The article is very clear here (with "it" being the lawsuit):
>
> It claims that since the laptops were used by students and their friends
> and family at home, images of "compromising or embarrassing positions,
> including ... in various states of undress" have been captured.
>
> In other words, they captured pictures of [near-]naked children in their
> homes and this can be construed to be child pornography though it's not
> clear that's the point of the lawsuit.
>
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I read it differently: there's a lot of reference to the lawsuit, but
> few specifics, and the publication never accusses the school district
> of using the capability, only of having the capability.
"... and USED {emphasis added} them to ..."
> I'd expect a lot more media attention on this issue if there was a
> more definite bases for an accusation: after all, spying is
> illegal, isn't it?
Well, To use a Clinton-ism, "that depends on what 'spying' is". A lot
of laws forbid audio monitoring, capture, or recording (i.e.,
'wiretapping' or 'eavesdropping') but allow video monitoring, capture,
or recording. AND 'the law allows' such actions if the party
being recorded has *consented*to* it, EVEN IF it would otherwise be
proscribed by law. The exact 'terms and conditions' under which the
students were supplied the computers is, suddenly, VERY important &
relevant.
Second, the computers in question were owned by the school district,
'on loan' to the students. THAT is where the situation starts to
get really messy. Basically, the property 'owner', RETAINS any/all
rights not explicitly ceded to someone else -- as part of a rental agreement,
for example. Again the exact language used by the district becomes of
critical importance.
Would you argue that an employer does, or does _not_, have the legal
right to install a 'keystroke' logger on a computer [which has been]
supplied [to] an employee for 'work' use? How about reading e-mails
stored on the company mail- server, OR on the desktop machine? How
about monitoring what web-sites the employees visit while 'on the
job'?
<*evil* grin>
Note: I think the lawsuit is well-founded. School district 'authority'
over the behavior of students is generally limited to 'on school grounds'
and "at school-sponsored activities'. One could possibly (although I
-really- doubt that this argument would fly) extend that logic to cover
'anything involving school-owned equipment', BUT that falls apart if the
actions leading to the discipline were not 'directly related to using
the computer.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm both surprised and fascinated by the ways that technology changes
society, and especially by the fact that humans seem to have a blind
spot when it comes to seeing change coming.
The cameras that appeared in cell phones a few years back enabled
teenagers to take X-rated pictures of themselves and to share them
with their friends: in theory, that's no different than the capability
of the earliest Kodak camera, but in practice it cuts out the
middleman - the film developer - and so encourages more abuse. Using a
webcam by remote control is different: AFAIK, there's no capability to
turn cell-phone cameras on by remote control.
I don't want to have a debate about the usefullness of "social
contracts". Aside from the fact that they are the Holy Grail of
certain political camps, long experience, over hundreds of years, has
shown that there are some things people should not be allowed to do,
even by their own free will.
* You can't sell yourself into slavery, whether you want to or not.
* You can't hire someone to commit a crime.
* You can't give up your rights without receiving something in return:
even soldiers, who give up the right to say "No", must be paid, fed,
and sheltered in return.
I might make an agreement with my employer that in return for the wage
I'm paid, I allow my boss to examine my emails or monitor my
keystrokes or watch me on a closed-circuit TV. However, the keystroke
logging program can't be used to intercept an email I send to my
attorney, and the TV can't take pictures in the lavatories. There are
some things that a nation simply can't risk leaving in private hands,
and the decision to give up the right of privacy is one of them.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:03:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <hlpin1$dku$1@reader2.panix.com>
Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes:
>Considering that you can get a prepaid wireless account for $10 which
>will pay for an account for 90 days and can cost as little as <$1 per
>month why would someone opt to pay 50c for a three minute call?
Wish I could find such. I have a T-mobile prepaid; it's $10/every
ninety days, which buys me in theory 30 minutes of use. Ergo, that
3 minute call you mention will cost me $1 or usually $1.33.
I can get cheaper /minute rates but basically only if I pay more per
month, or buy a far bigger chunk of time. Neither appeals
to me.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:58:48 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <7b35530e-b514-4203-8ebc-64f24a137cb2@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 17, 2:31 am, John Mayson <j...@mayson.us> wrote:
> Lately around Austin I've made it a point to search for pay
> phones. I have been in malls, airports, supermarkets, and hospitals
> and haven't seen any.
I happened to notice the other night in a 2010 TV movie one of the
characters (a teen) needed to make a call and there happened to be a
pay phone booth on the beach which she utilized. I was rather
surprised at this since (1) almost every teenager has their own
cellphone, (2) it wasn't only a pay phone, but a full booth, and (3)
and it was on the beach. I didn't pay close attention to get the
entire context of the scene, but it seemed strange to me in a 2010
movie.
Speaking of movies, North by Northwest will be on TCM Sunday evening.
Great movie. Lots of telephone scenes, including a dramatic one in a
battery of phone booths in a Chicago railroad terminal.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:53:20 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <19e20b23-9c7b-49f8-a673-6c8925404fd4@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 19, 4:01 pm, Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
> I think you're mixing up the timeline: when the phones went to 50
> cents per call, cellphones were still very expensive and still cost a
> lot to run. The rates you cite may be low _now_, but one of the
> driving forces behine them becoming low was the large influx of
> dissatisfied payphone customers, many of whom wouldn't pay 50 cents
> per call even if it meant paying $90 per month for a cell phone
> instead.
I don't think people minded paying the 50c for a local call. Rather,
I think people very much liked the convenience of a cell phone--which
at first was just in automobiles--and enabled the user to make and
receive calls anywhere at any time. The receiving of calls was a
major advtg--the caller didn't need to know where his party was, just
dial the number. Can't do that with pay phones without cumbersome
games and coordination. Even though pay phones used to be everywhere,
a cell phone was still more convenient, especially on the road. I
knew a real estate salesperson who got an early car cellphone (corded
to the car) and she said it was well worth it.
I believe by the time moderately sized hand units (like the Motorola
"flip phone" (550?) cell phone rates had come down enough to make
them attractive. A big advtg of cellphones that users quickly
discovered was cheap or even free regional calling--something that was
getting rather costly at pay phones.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 The Telecom digest (18 messages)
|
or 