---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <qa9r1g$j8r$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> Date: 30 Apr 2019 15:53:20 +0000 From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org> Subject: Re: Arizona joins majority of nation in enacting texting while driving ban In article <qa02qd$pln$1@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote: > 2) How do they plan to enforce it? How far away are we from being > able to tell electronically - from cell phone company records and > what not - that people are texting while driving. Like they do on > the TV crime shows... Infinitely far, since there is no way to tell from cell tower records whether the user is in the driver's seat or the passenger's seat. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can, wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together." my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <barmar-67ADD9.10450530042019@reader443.eternal-september.org> Date: 30 Apr 2019 10:45:05 -0400 From: "Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Arizona joins majority of nation in enacting texting while driving ban In article <qa02qd$pln$1@news.xmission.com>, "Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote: > In article <20190423143543.GA22992@telecom.csail.mit.edu>, > Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote: > > >PHOENIX - Arizona joined the majority of the nation in enacting a ban > >against texting and driving on Monday, four months after a Valley > >police officer was struck and killed by a man who admitted to texting > >behind the wheel. > > > >Gov. Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2318 into law during a ceremony > >attended by advocates, law enforcement, lawmakers and the family of > >Salt River Officer Clayton Townsend. > > A couple of questions: > > 1) I take it this doesn't affect *talking* on cell phone while driving. > Just texting. This is sensible. A number of states also have laws that say you can only talk with hands-free phones. > > 2) How do they plan to enforce it? How far away are we from being > able to tell electronically - from cell phone company records and > what not - that people are texting while driving. Like they do on > the TV crime shows... Cops can see when a driver is looking down at their phone instead of forward through the windshield and their hand is off the steering wheel. And once they have probably cause to pull you over, I'll bet they can get phone company records to confirm that you were indeed texting at that time. So they should be able to tell the difference between using a traffic or GPS app and texting. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ Message-ID: <4228FA2F-BA30-4E81-BE4F-774E39047268@roscom.com> Date: 1 May 2019 09:23:14 -0400 From: "Monty Solomon" <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Invisible Malware Is Here and Your Security Software Can't Catch It Invisible Malware Is Here and Your Security Software Can't Catch It Sophisticated attackers are now using "invisible malware," a new form of attack that your firewalls can't stop and your anti-malware software can't find nor remove. Here are steps you can take right now to protect your servers and network. By Wayne Rash "With the advancement in anti-malware and Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) software making it easier to catch zero-day malware, the malware writers are moving lower on the stack," said Alissa Knight, a senior analyst with Aite Group's cybersecurity practice. She specializes in hardware-based threats. Knight said this new type of malware is being developed that can evade detection by legacy software. https://www.pcmag.com/article/367947/invisible-malware-is-here-and-your-security-software-cant-c ------------------------------ Message-ID: <CANog7L5wTOPOw+h1BQQzUUbtNPtxAuzPurnn8f4LOh1huez78Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: 30 Apr 2019 11:17:40 -0400 From: "Charles Jackson" <clj@jacksons.net> Subject: Re: You Can't Stop Robocalls. You Shouldn't Have To. Fred wrote: > My Callcentric service has been a blessing in that regard. > > They use True CNAMS to determine if the call is from a known > source of SPAM callers. And I can customize how I want them to handle > it if it is. My reaction to Callcentric's call blocking is the same as Fred's! The rest of my family feels the same. Fred did not describe one option that Callcentric offers among its call treatments. A treatment, say the one for all calls not in your Contact list, can be set to have a voice prompt stating "Press one to be connected." After the caller presses one, the phone rings. This provides a second barrier to spam, after the True CNAMS screen. It has the unfortunate side effect of blocking some automated calls that are desired such as "Your prescription is ready." Fred also wrote: If you get just their basic services, it will cost about sixteen dollars per month. I don't think he makes it clear whether that $16 is for four lines or one line. Our charges are $5/month plus $0.015/minute for two lines. So,we are paying less than Fred but we don't talk much. A few hundred minutes a month at our rates for four lines would put the cost at about $16/mo or $4/line. Chuck ====================== Charles L. Jackson 301 656 8716 desk phone 301 775 1023 mobile PO Box 221 Port Tobacco, MD 20677 ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Thu, 02 May 2019