|
|
Message Digest
Volume 29 : Issue 53 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
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: 40% lack home broadband access
Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Re: Pay phone nostalgia
FWIW: Long Lines web site
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
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Re: What is an "app"?
Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Re: How do you get your number off a list so that it's gone, gone
Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court
====== 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 22:11:10 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.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: <4B80CE7E.1070205@thadlabs.com>
On 2/20/2010 6:40 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 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.
It's clear the school administrator is lying. Consider:
1. Robbins' laptop would not have been reported lost or stolen since Robbins
obviously was in possession of it and was using it when his actions were
captured by the webcam,
2. Repeating an earlier post in this thread, the action captured by the
webcam and for which the administrator admonished Robbins was eating
candy which the administrator thought was (a) drug(s) [apparently small
white round candies which looked like pills], and
3. why was the webcam-captured picture in the administrator's "hands" if
the laptop (obviously) wasn't reported stolen or lost? The implication
here is the administrator deliberately and without any justified reason
remotely snapped the webcam picture and was probably in the habit of doing
so nightly with other students' laptop webcams.
Item (3) causes me to speculate that the webcam-captured picture of Robbins
eating candy at home is just one of many such surreptitiously taken pictures
of the school's male and female students (thinking child porn here). The
administrator really crucified himself by revealing to Robbins the picture
of Robbins eating candy at home, hence the lawsuit.
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:57:07 -0800
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.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: <4B81C853.9030007@thadlabs.com>
On 2/20/2010 10:11 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
> [...]
> Consider:
>
> 1. Robbins' laptop would not have been reported lost or stolen since Robbins
> obviously was in possession of it and was using it when his actions were
> captured by the webcam,
>
> 2. Repeating an earlier post in this thread, the action captured by the
> webcam and for which the administrator admonished Robbins was eating
> candy which the administrator thought was (a) drug(s) [apparently small
> white round candies which looked like pills], and
>
> 3. why was the webcam-captured picture in the administrator's "hands" if
> the laptop (obviously) wasn't reported stolen or lost? The implication
> here is the administrator deliberately and without any justified reason
> remotely snapped the webcam picture and was probably in the habit of doing
> so nightly with other students' laptop webcams.
> [...]
> The administrator really crucified himself by revealing to Robbins the picture
> of Robbins eating candy at home, hence the lawsuit.
The school district's response to the lawsuit can be seen here:
http://www.tekgoblin.com/2020/news/lmsd-response-to-webcam-privacy-allegation/
and commented on Slashdot per:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/21/2010213/PA-School-Defends-Web-Cam-Spying-As-Security-Measure-Denies-Misuse
"
" [...] The software that was installed
" would take a photo of the person using the laptop after it was stolen
" to give to the authorities. Now this may be what it was intended for,
" but it seems that someone didn't get the memo. The district's claim
" that it "has not used the tracking feature or web cam for any other
" purpose or in any other manner whatsoever" doesn't square with the
" allegations which set off this whole storm. And if there was nothing
" wrong with it, why does the school say it won't start using the
" snooping feature again without "express written notification to all
" students and families"?
Date: 21 Feb 2010 06:25:18 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <20100221062518.8733.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> 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.
Since it sounds like you don't use up the 30 minutes each quarter,
you're paying $40/yr to have a phone available, and any actual use is
gravy.
For very low usage, get a Mobal SIM. No monthly fee, never expires,
but costs $1.95/min when you use it.
If you want a cell phone you plan to use but don't talk enough to
merit a monthly plan, take a look at Tracfone. I got a Moto W376g, a
reasonable phone, for $20 including double minutes on their web site.
Their airtime pricing is deliberately complicated and baffling, but
you can generally get 60 mins and 90 days for $20, which doubles to
120 mins, and if you Google around for a promotion code, you can
usually boost it to 150 mins which is a reasonable 13cpm. I paid $100
for 400 minutes, doubled to 800 with a 200 min bonus for 1000 mins at
10cpm, good for a year. That matches my use pretty well, 83 mins for
$8.30 per month, which is way less than any monthly plan you can get
now.
But wait! There's more! Tracfone provides international dialaround at
no extra cost, just the regular airtime. I don't know many other US
mobiles that let me call Canada or Europe for 10 CPM, and I don't know
any others that offer Bolivia or Jordan or French Guiana (including
mobiles) or Turkey for that price.
R's,
John
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:42:09 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 40% lack home broadband access
Message-ID: <op.u8gvojspo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:04:49 -0500, Matt Simpson <net-news69@jmatt.net>
wrote:
> In article <hlge11$eqm$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
>
>> I have the occasional customer with dial-up and they're not the
>> typical consumer of the hotshot websites. Usually they just use
>> their connection for email and can't be bothered with Facebook or
>> other fancy sites.
>
> Unfortunately, many websites that wouldn't necessarily be considered
> "hotshot" are far more bandwidth-intensive than they need to be. I'm
> thinking about credit-card and banking websites that make me download
> multiple megabytes of flash, javascript, images, etc to get a
> statement with information that could just as easily be presented in a
> couple kilobytes of text.
Even webmail providers (think gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail) use a lot
more glitz than is necessary. Even current Opera (at least as I've got
it installed) has trouble enough with hotmail that I'm forced to use
IE for that (or to use Thunderbird to POP my new hotmail emails in to
me) -- it can get me through the login screen, but draws a blank
screen after that.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:52:00 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Prison to Test Cellphone Jamming
Message-ID: <op.u8gv4ywxo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:48:12 -0500, <ranck@vt.edu> wrote:
> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> ANNAPOLIS, Md - Equipment that jams cellphones will get its first
>> federally sanctioned test inside a prison in Maryland this week, as
>
> Sigh! Can't they just RF sheild the damn buildings? Then they
> don't risk interfering with people outside. Churches and theatres
> certainly have that option. Jammers are a bad idea.
Hmmm ... cell phones don't work if their batteries are run down.
Perhaps prisoners' cells shouldn't have electrical outlets ... .
No juice, no charge, no (usability for any) cell phone. No?
Cheers, -- tlvp
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:02:44 -0800 (PST)
From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Pay phone nostalgia
Message-ID: <76b26391-6002-4d71-8404-72786904ad05@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 20, 1:35 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> 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.
I thought the FCC's end result was correct. A landlord should not be
able to prohibit the use of part 15 devices. My condo CC&Rs prohibit
transmitters except for garage door openers. Lots of neighbors have
wifi. I'm sure they have cordless phones an cellphones. The rules seem
to recognize the OTARD requirements of the FCC, though they apply the
size limit to TV antennae, while it does not apply to them
( http://louise.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2010/1/4000/ ).
The FCC's application of the OTARD rule to the MassPort vs Continental
situation seems to be a stretch. I always thought the OTARD rule's
intent was to allow wireless methods of delivering television signals
to a customer's premises in competition with cable television. I think
the rule was established when cable television rates were deregulated,
so the rule was put in place to insure there was competition to cable
television. In the MassPort case, the internet service was delivered
to the premises over a T-1. The Wi-Fi was used for local distribution
to Continental's customers and not for delivery of internet to
Continental's leased premises. So, the application of OTARD seems like
a stretch.
The decision documents are:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A3.pdf
Harold
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:32:00 -0500
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: FWIW: Long Lines web site
Message-ID: <op.u8gu7mlyo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
In another group, reference was made to the following pages
on Long Lines, which might be of some interest here:
http://www.long-lines.net/index.html .
Cheers, -- tlvp
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:42:57 -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: <72c5db11-a126-4327-b0c9-8729f1493938@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 19, 11:08 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
> US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
A TV news station serving that area has the latest reports on its
website: 6abc.com (WPVI-TV, Philadelphia).
A family claims the school had a picture of their son from the webcam,
but the School District denies it.
The School District says the plan to use the cameras to track down
lost/stolen laptops has been discontinued.
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:07:24 -0500
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.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: <HcydnRPJ1LLhDxzWnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
On 2/21/2010 1:42 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>> US school district spied on students through webcams, court told
>
> A TV news station serving that area has the latest reports on its
> website: 6abc.com (WPVI-TV, Philadelphia).
>
> A family claims the school had a picture of their son from the webcam,
> but the School District denies it.
>
> The School District says the plan to use the cameras to track down
> lost/stolen laptops has been discontinued.
>
I did a search at the 6abc.com website, and here's a URL to simplify the
process for others:
http://tinyurl.com/yd5nxkn
Bill Horne
--
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
"When she was twenty-one, she wore her mother's lace
She said 'Forever' with a smile upon her face"
- Mary Chapin Carpenter
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:01:26 -0500
From: John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Message-ID: <BE.87.29132.6D8518B4@hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com>
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]
Bill,
It is hard to understand the thought process of these school
administrators to come up with an idea of a remote activation of a
built-in camera and microphone to counter act potential theft of
"their" (tax payer money paid for them anyway) computers'. Anytime a
school district messes with the public trust they are "serving" in
their guidance of children through the federally mandated education
process, they open the door to lawsuits which they will most likely
lose. Heck, this could even be construed by a good plaintiff's lawyer
as a case(s) of child pornography by the school administrator's (like
putting cameras in students bathrooms or showers to catch drug and/or
cigerette use!)
They could have easily found more non-direct contact type Internet
based "services" available to track a stolen mobile device such as a
laptop. I did a quick Net search and found examples of the following
services:
One called LocateMyLaptop.com calls itself a free service.
Another by Unistal called Locate Laptop - Anti-theft & Laptop Tracker Tool.
And another service by Computrace called LoJack for Laptops.
Of course 20-20 hindsight is based on would-a, could-a, should-a, but
better logic should have taken the lead for these administrators in
this instance.
John
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:34:20 GMT
From: sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com (David Kaye)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Message-ID: <hls8ss$plc$2@news.eternal-september.org>
John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>It is hard to understand the thought process of these school
>administrators to come up with an idea of a remote activation of a
>built-in camera and microphone to counter act potential theft of
>"their" (tax payer money paid for them anyway) computers'.
What I don't understand is why school districts are supplying anyone with
laptops in the first place. They should be providing desktops in computer
labs and in offices and tracking the presence of each one and restricting what
programs can run on each one.
But if they're going to provide laptops I'm all in favor of spying. After
all, the laptops belong to the district and they have a right to control how
the laptops are used. Period, end of story.
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:21:56 -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
Message-ID: <ncc3o5ltioq18764hkauodl1m0ougrksrp@4ax.com>
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:01:26 -0500, John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com>
wrote:
>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]
>
> Bill,
>
> It is hard to understand the thought process of these school
> administrators to come up with an idea of a remote activation of a
> built-in camera and microphone to counter act potential theft of
> "their" (tax payer money paid for them anyway) computers'. Anytime a
> school district messes with the public trust they are "serving" in
> their guidance of children through the federally mandated education
> process, they open the door to lawsuits which they will most likely
> lose. Heck, this could even be construed by a good plaintiff's lawyer
> as a case(s) of child pornography by the school administrator's (like
> putting cameras in students bathrooms or showers to catch drug and/or
> cigerette use!)
>
> They could have easily found more non-direct contact type Internet
> based "services" available to track a stolen mobile device such as a
> laptop. I did a quick Net search and found examples of the following
> services:
>
> One called LocateMyLaptop.com calls itself a free service.
>
> Another by Unistal called Locate Laptop - Anti-theft & Laptop Tracker Tool.
>
> And another service by Computrace called LoJack for Laptops.
>
> Of course 20-20 hindsight is based on would-a, could-a, should-a, but
> better logic should have taken the lead for these administrators in
> this instance.
To put a bit of irony into this whole scenario, some of the students
who claim that the webcam light came on at home had just finished a
reading assignment of George Orwell's "1984". It appears that big
brother is the school district...
ET
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:49:28 -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
Message-ID: <607fa863-9f57-4c95-874b-060a01d89b67@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 21, 11:01 am, John Stahl <al...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> It is hard to understand the thought process of these school
> administrators to come up with an idea of a remote activation of a
> built-in camera and microphone to counter act potential theft of
> "their" (tax payer money paid for them anyway) computers'. Anytime a
> school district messes with the public trust they are "serving" in
> their guidance of children through the federally mandated education
> process, they open the door to lawsuits which they will most likely
> lose. Heck, this could even be construed by a good plaintiff's lawyer
> as a case(s) of child pornography by the school administrator's (like
> putting cameras in students bathrooms or showers to catch drug and/or
> cigerette use!)
Newspaper reports on this issue have stated that such surveillance is
legal and has been successfully used elsewhere to capture lost/stolen
equipment.
As to losing lawsuits, many of today's actions by school
administrators are in response to lawsuits. If the administrators
fail to take a very hard line against drug users, fighters, cellphone
camera snappers, etc., other parents will sue the school district for
negligence and win.
Sorry to nitpick, but I believe education and school policies are
mandated by state laws, not federal laws. More significantly, state
laws and court decisions vary significantly from state to state and
even with locations within a state.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:21:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams
Message-ID: <hlst7b$chv$1@reader2.panix.com>
In <607fa863-9f57-4c95-874b-060a01d89b67@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
[snip]
> Sorry to nitpick, but I believe education and school policies are
> mandated by state laws, not federal laws.
Just like there was no federal law mandating a 55 mph speed limit, and
there ain't no federal law requiring an age 21 drinking cut off, eh?
In other words, laddie, the feds have plenty of ways of applying
pressure to local folk.
You might take a look at, oh, "No Child Left Behind" (Bush
Adminstration), "Title IX", and a whole big bunch of other funding
shenanigans.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:36:49 -0500
From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: What is an "app"?
Message-ID: <B6CE7A117E0D4D71B0DF93A643000206@estore.us.dg.com>
Joseph Singer wrote:
>> What exactly is an "app"?
>>
>> Is the word merely shorthand for 'computer application', that is, a
>> computer program (or programs) that perform tasks for the user, such
>> as a word processor, alarm clock calendar, obtain and display train
>> schedules, etc.?
>
> App is the term Apple uses to describe programs. In Windows they are
> referred to as programs and with Apple they are called applications or
> apps for short.
This assertion continues to propagate the mistaken notion that the term
"app" is somehow particularly associated with Apple (be it Mac, iPhone or
any other Apple platform) and is not used in the context of the majority of
the world's computers (which run Windows, UNIX/Linux, Symbian, Blackberry,
etc.). Please allow me to refute this notion.
Computer application programs have been known as "applications" (as well as
"programs") for decades, at least back to the 1980s (which is when I first
encountered the term) if not before that into the pre-PC era of mainframes
and minicomputers. I don't know when the "app" abbreviation first entered
common usage, but I personally remember working with "UNIX apps" in the late
1980s. The Windows world (and the MS DOS world before it) is certainly
familiar with the term. DOS-based Lotus 1-2-3, which supplanted VisiCalc in
the 1980s, was the "killer app" that drove lots of early IBM PC sales.
Bob Goudreau
Cary, NC
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:43:12 -0500
From: "Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@verizon.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re:Does ADSL interfere with cordless phone?
Message-ID: <MPG.25eb64ef7383db4b98968e@news.giganews.com>
In article <pan.2010.02.19.00.27.46.942789@myrealbox.com>,
dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:28:36 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2010.02.16.06.40.45.926376@myrealbox.com>,
>> dcstar@myrealbox.com says...
> ........
>>> ADSL performance is based on maximum possible S/N ratio at the remote
>>> modem end: allow another digital device to pump even tiny amounts of HF
>>> noise into the line (which "normal" handsets care little about) and you
>>> will find you maximum sync rate far lower than it could be.
>>>
>>> Just don't use one filter on a cordless base station, use two.
>>
>> That's just silly.
>
> Most ADSL filters are designed to be low pass in one direction but
> they do seem to also have low pass characteristics in the other
> direction (these things are invariably built to the lowest cost to do
> the basic job - which does not include filtering in the opposite
> direction).
No, most filters are not directional at all, only the packaging
is (jack on one end, plug on the other, but in performance it
makes no difference).
> The purpose of putting two on a digital handset base station which has
> the potential to put the internally generated digital hash back into
> the phone line it connects to - which is very bad for any ADSL signal
> that is also on that line - is to reduce that potential hash.
I don't think that this is true of any cordless base station made
in the last 10 years. Compliance with EMC guidelines (EN55024)
makes internal filtering on the incoming cable practically
mandatory to avoid conducted interference.
--Gene
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:54:43 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
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, gone
Message-ID: <hls7bp$5fo$1@blue.rahul.net>
I've been getting machine-initiated announcement calls, usually at
6-6:30 AM, about once a week from one of the local school districts
ever since I moved here. I have no kids, and the callers don't
identify themselves (or it's at the end of a several-minute spiel that
I don't wait for).
Are these people exempt from the DNC list (which I'm on)? Or from
California's no-robocalls law? Any help would be appreciated, but
it's gotten to the point that I don't just want to find the right
flunky and nicely ask him/her to de-list me: I want a judge to make an
example of that agency that will deter other agencies from taking up
this practice.
***** Moderator's Note *****
It's likely that the number used to be assigned to a family with
school-aged children. Your best bet is to write a letter TWIMC, and
send it to the School Department. This will save you the aggravation
of finding whichever flunky is empowered to delete your number from
the list, and the expense of hiring an attorney to get a judge to
order them to do it.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:54:56 -0700
From: Robert Neville <dont@bother.com>
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, gone
Message-ID: <bvd3o5t1071pc2jckjene47hvndevp1etc@4ax.com>
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> It's likely that the number used to be assigned to a family with
> school-aged children.
In the recent similar situation I had and posted about here, I was
able to identify the school from the recorded robo call
message. Unfortunately it took several calls and an email to the
school principle to get the number delisted from their system.
Slightly more annoying than the "school delayed" calls at 5AM was the
complaint by the school staff that they had no easy way of identifying
the student name by just the phone number and that they had to
manually look at 500 records to figure out who the number was
previously assigned to.
I find it difficult to believe that their system doesn't have a search
function, but my heart bleeds (not). If they want to use such a
system, they better be prepared to manage it properly. And that means
shutting down such calls after one request.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:58:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: prhkgh@comcast.net
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: US school district spied on students through webcams, court
Message-ID: <566526075.5906721266800327475.JavaMail.root@sz0010a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
On Feb 20 2010 at 6:41 pm, Robert Bonomi wrote
> 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>
In response to the <maybe hypothetical> question as to if an employer
has the right to monitor computer activity (see orig clip at the end
of this post for exact wording):
Absolutely they do, (in my opinion) both morally and legally ...
although there is no 'requirement' that they do so, and if they want
to tolerate non-business use that's certainly within their power. I
guess my position is such use of equipment and company time is a
'privelege' not a 'right'.
Employees are hired and being paid to do a job, not conduct personal
business. Not to surf the web (in most cases...some jobs do
incorporate this). Not to have personal phone calls with friends and
relatives, or spend 2 hours on the phone fighting with airlines over
tickets they bought for their mom to come and visit (I observed a
co-worker doing this just this week ... while "on the clock"!)
Before the expansion of ways to communicate this was I think easier to
understand, when the only communication outside one's business was
usually by phone. Many PBXes were setup to not allow outside calls by
the general user; they would have to ask the PBX operator for an
outside line or to place a call on their behalf. Later technology
using SMDR (station message detailed recording) would track what
extensions called what numbers and for how long ... or in some cases,
what authorization code was used for the calls in order to backcharge
tel. expenses to projects.
In my ~15 years as an outside "phone man" there were only two types of
situations when I would call home or my wife would attempt to contact
me: I'd call her if I was going to be working overtime and late for
dinner. She'd call my office to contact me if one of the kids was
sick or had an accident. Oh yeah, there was a 3rd time too: when she
was 9 month's pregnant I would call twice daily to see if labor had
started. That's it. No "how's your day going?" No "I'm bored". No
calls from her with gossip or weekend plans. Yet I realize I'm in a
minority, as both co-workers who reside in the same office as me now
have multiple conversations a day with their spouses. One has even
taken personal cell phone calls from his wife while in a meeting with
me, my boss, AND HIS BOSS! So times have certainly changed. (Yes,
definate old-fogey-ism occuring here.)
I've held many varied positions since starting as a part time
"printer's devil" in a newspaper shop while in high school in '66: ice
cream truck driver, production control assistant in a sheet metal
factory, >30 years with the Bell System / AT&T, FedEx Kinkos as a
driver & manager, OSH, and now a data manager for a non-profit
Domestic Violence Women's Shelter. Most of these jobs expected me to
<gasp> actually be doing my job while I was being paid! Most of them
had tolerances for some degree of personal activities, and these
tolerances mostly increased over the years, and whether the employee
was hourly or salary.
As a UNIX system administrator, and later as an IT manager with responsibility
over computers and networks, I often came upon non-business use by my general
user population. As I was not their manager or boss, I would turn a "blind
eye" to non-company use of equipment EXCEPT in three situations:
1. When management asked me to monitor usage for potential abuse and
possible disciplinary action.
2. When systems failed or slowed down and investigation showed
non-business use was the cause of the problem. In these cases I
would usually have a one-on-one conversation with the abuser as to
what his or her actions were causing, with a suggestion they "knock
it off", and if it happened again it would be brought to their
manager's attention. (Result: 99% of time, they did "knock it
off.")
3. When a user reported and then escalated that their system wouldn't
do something (that had been disabled at direction of her
management), and wouldn't drop the matter. Case in point, a user
reported trouble that their workstation (a SUN SPARC Unix
Workstation) would not play their audio CDs. I explained our
standard software load deliberately de-activated the CD drives
because their managers did not want them being used, and the only
reason the workstations had them was it was cheaper to bulk
purchase them so equipped. The user repeatedly reported the
trouble (searching for an IT tech who would just "fix it" anyway),
and then was clueless enough to escalate to my Division Manager
that they had reported "their PC" as broken 3 times (she had) and
it still wasn't "fixed" (it wasn't broken.) Result: I documented
the times she had reported it, the time my techs had spent checking
and looking into the situation to make sure everything that SHOULD
be working was working, the email chain she and I had had over the
situation, and sent it all to MY Division Manager in response to
his inquiry as to why we were not being responsive...and also to
HER Division Manager to document how much $$$ her insistance was
costing. (Had she taken "you can't do that" with the 1st report it
would have all ended there. As it was, she lost this argument, big
time.)
While employed by FedEx Kinkos I knew of an evening worker who was
fired (actually, given a chance to resign) because he had brought in
his personal laptop and hooked up to the business network. Theft of
company assets and falsification of timesheets (because he was doing
personal stuff while on the clock) was what he was going to be charged
with had he not resigned, and he was told if he didn't resign they
would not only fire him but also sue him for reimbursement for the
time security cameras showed he was using the laptop while being paid
to run jobs.
Companies pay for the equipment, the networks, the bandwidth, and are
paying the user's to work. So why shouldn't they be able to monitor
to make sure their equipment and resources are being used for company
business? When I left AT&T in 2003 courts had started ruling in favors
of employers in monitoring such as reviewing emails. I have not kept
up with rulings since then as I am no longer responsible for company
networks.
However, even given all the above, the school district with the
laptops w/capability to remotely activate built in video cameras was
definately in the "what where they thinking" mode. Even if there
were agreements spelling out the potential of such use prior to
distributing the laptops, who signed them? The kids are minors and
not legally able to enter into "contracts". Parents and legal
guardians are not allowed to sign away their children's "rights",
which I assume would include "rights to privacy".
So I don't think the question is one of employers monitoring their
equipment use, it's a case of children's rights being abused or the
potential for such abuse, and as far as I can tell there is no way for
those rights to have been "signed away" even if agreements were signed
to that effect.
Paul Hoffman
AT&T IT Manager, retired.
***** Moderator's Note *****
PLEASE do not paste text from a microsoft editor into email
submissions you are sending to the digest! It leaves proprietary
artifacts in the text which I must edit out by hand.
Bill Horne
Moderator
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 (19 messages)
|
or 