29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for April 10, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 92 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud(Monty Solomon)
Re: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud(Sam Spade)
Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let's Talk.(Monty Solomon)
Re: Afghanistan does NOT have more cellular competition than the US(Joseph Singer)

====== 29 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 Bill Horne 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, 9 Apr 2011 10:28:53 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud 
Message-ID: <p06240821c9c615c8f283@[10.0.1.4]>

After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud

By MIGUEL HELFT
April 4, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO - Security experts said Monday that millions of people 
were at increased risk of e-mail swindles after a giant security 
breach at an online marketing firm.

The breach exposed the e-mail addresses of customers of some of the 
nation's largest companies, including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, 
Target and Walgreens. In some cases customer names were also stolen.

While the number of people affected is unknown, security experts say 
that based on the businesses involved, the breach may be among the 
largest ever. And it could lead to a surge in phishing attacks - 
e-mails that purport to be from a legitimate business but are 
intended to steal information like account numbers or passwords.

"It is clearly a massive hemorrhage," said Michael Kleeman, a network 
security expert at the University of California, San Diego.

The marketing firm that suffered the breach, Epsilon, which handles 
e-mail marketing lists for hundreds of clients, disclosed the problem 
in a brief statement on Friday. But its sheer scale became clear over 
the weekend and on Monday, as banks, retailers and others began 
alerting their customers to be on the lookout for fraudulent e-mails.

While e-mail addresses may not seem particularly vulnerable, experts 
say that if criminals can associate addresses with names and a 
business like a bank, they can devise highly customized attacks to 
trick people into disclosing more confidential information, a 
technique known as "spear phishing."

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/business/05hack.html




Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:45:37 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: After Breach, Companies Warn of E-Mail Fraud 
Message-ID: <lNGdnSQF8NbvWD3QnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

Monty Solomon wrote:

> 
> While e-mail addresses may not seem particularly vulnerable, experts 
> say that if criminals can associate addresses with names and a 
> business like a bank, they can devise highly customized attacks to 
> trick people into disclosing more confidential information, a 
> technique known as "spear phishing."
> 

Rule #1: Never respond to emails that appear to be a legitimate 
institution requesting any personal information.  For that matter just 
trash any message like that.




Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 10:28:53 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let's Talk. 
Message-ID: <p0624082bc9c61a7d0d12@[10.0.1.4]>

Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let's Talk.

By KATE MURPHY
March 30, 2011

In a culture where people cradle their cellphones next to their heads 
with the same constancy and affection that toddlers hold their 
security blankets, it was unsettling last month when a study 
published in The Journal of the American Medical Association 
indicated that doing so could alter brain activity.

The report said it was unclear whether the changes in the brain - an 
increase in glucose metabolism after using the phone for less than an 
hour - had any negative health or behavioral effects. But it has many 
people wondering what they can do to protect themselves short of 
(gasp) using a landline.

"Cellphones are fantastic and have done much to increase 
productivity," said Dr. Nora Volkow, the lead investigator of the 
study and director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the 
National Institutes of Health. "I'd never tell people to stop using 
them entirely."

Yet, in light of her findings, she advises users to keep cellphones 
at a distance by putting them on speaker mode or using a wired 
headset whenever possible. The next best option is a wireless 
Bluetooth headset or earpiece, which emit radiation at far lower 
levels. If a headset isn't feasible, holding your phone just slightly 
away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of 
radiation diminishes sharply with distance. "Every millimeter 
counts," said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an online 
newsletter covering health and safety issues related to exposure to 
electromagnetic radiation.

So crushing your cellphone into your ear to hear better in a crowded 
bar is probably a bad idea. Go outside if you have to take or make a 
call. And you might not want to put your cellphone in your breast or 
pants pocket either, because that also puts it right up against your 
body. Carry it in a purse or briefcase or get a nonmetallic belt clip 
that orients it away from your body.

Some studies have suggested a link between cellphone use and cancer, 
lower bone density and infertility in men. But other studies show no 
effect at all. Given the mixed messages and continuing research, 
Robert Kenny, a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, said in 
an e-mail, "As always, we will continue to study this issue and 
coordinate with our federal partners."

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/technology/personaltech/31basics.html




Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Afghanistan does NOT have more cellular competition than the US 
Message-ID: <136692.2461.qm@web161506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:35:58 -0500 John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:

> To have true competition in the US we would need complete
> interoperability (i.e. all providers work off the same standard) and
> the freedom to take the phones we outright own across the street to
> another provider.

There are likely reasons why there was no mandate for one technology
over the other in the US.  One reason is that the US government's
stance has usually been to let the market declare what the standard is
going to be.  It's been that way historically with wired telephony as
well to one extent or another.  The EU had a mandate to make mobile
telephony across Europe a reality where previously there had been a
hodgepodge of various analogue standards.  It was decided to go with
GSM (at that time Groupe Special Mobile nka Global System for Mobile
communications) so all of Europe could be united with one common
standard.  Later the standard was rolled out to many other countries
not a part of the EU.  GSM wasn't always a world standard.  It was
adopted world-wide later.

With that said even in the US with the present GSM landscape with AT&T
and T-Mobile it's all not completely compatible since both T-Mobile
and AT&T don't have all the same frequencies for everything.
T-Mobile's 2G network is GSM at 1900 Mhz (PCS) and AT&T's network is
both GSM at 1900 Mhz (PCS) as well as 850 (cellular.)  Most phones
sold by T-Mobile have been able to use 850 Mhz as well over the last
few years or so and can roam where allowed on 850 networks.

Most subscribers on GSM networks such as AT&T and T-Mobile don't even
know their phones are locked to the network where they bought their
phones or even know that there is more than one standard used for
mobile telephony.  In fact most people wouldn't have a clue what
technology their network uses... even those with iPhones since when
most people get a new iPhone from AT&T they never even see the SIM
card in the phone since it was pre-installed in it.





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 (4 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues