Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.2210031429060.29931@panix1.panix.com>
Date: 3 Oct 2022 14:29:46 +0000
From: "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com>
Subject: BREAKING: Supreme Court To Review Broad Immunity For Big
Tech
Subject: BREAKING: Supreme Court To Review Broad Immunity For Big Tech
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to reconsider the broad legal
immunity afforded to internet companies under Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, taking up a request to revive a suit
against Google over its Youtube unit's alleged aiding of the 2015
Paris terror attacks.
Law360
Message-ID: <9d2366e5-0fdc-74b4-f7f0-82db1e91ccf8@panix.com>
Date: 4 Oct 2022 12:18:05 -0400
From: "David" <wb8foz@panix.com>
Subject: Prison Calls and California
On Thursday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that
makes phone calls from California's prisons free of charge. The new
law places the cost of calls not on incarcerated people - or the
people receiving calls from them - but on the state's Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
California is the second state after Connecticut and the biggest state
by far to institute such a law, which is a direct shot at the $1.4
billion prison telecom industry. For years prison telecom companies have
maintained rates that “can be unjustly and unreasonably high, thereby
impeding the ability of inmates and their loved ones to maintain vital
connections,” the FCC said in 2020.
...
https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/california-free-prison-calls
Long overdue, in my view. The courts & FCC just exposed a massive scam
by GTL, a big player in the field. They had assimilated $121 million
from inactive accounts. The CT/CA approach cuts the head off the
monster.
Every study has shown that isolating inmates from their family and
friends increases the recidivism rate, and THAT costs us all.
************************** Moderator's Note **************************
"Every study" is a bit too broad for my comfort, but I'll agree that
GTL should not be taking money that doesn't belong to it. I've written
before about the extraordinary costs of doing work in prisons, and
those costs still remain, but GTL has crossed a line if these
allegations are true.
Bill Horne
Full Disclosure: GTL owns the company I used to work for.
Message-ID: <thhpfr$8cm$1@usenet.csail.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 2022 17:11:23 -0000
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
Subject: Re: The U.S. Is Behind on Mobile Payments,
But We're Catching Up
In article <Esr_K.532286$Ny99.380632@fx16.iad>,
Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
> I believe that is also related to your region. I've heard from
> west-coast friends that mobile-payments are more common out their way.
> In the mid-west (eastern Ohio), I very rarely see such a thing.
"Mobile payments" use the same EMV ("Europay, Mastercard, Visa"[1])
near-field communications technology as tap-to-pay credit cards, which
nearly all banks are issuing now. It's probably possible for a
merchant to buy a payment terminal that doesn't support NFC but any
new point-of-sale installation is going to include it.
That doesn't mean that the banks don't put barriers in the way of
enabling mobile "wallets" like Apple/google/Samsung Pay. For example,
my credit union contracts out its credit card business to a bank
called Elan, and while they're perfectly happy to issue me a
contactless credit card, they make it a hassle to enroll that card in
Google Pay -- you can't use the on-device enrollment flow, you have to
speak to a customer-service representative on the phone and get an
authorization code. Many people presumably just give up at this
point.
-GAWollman
[1] Europay merged with Mastercard about 20 years ago, but at the time
the standard for "chip and pin" payments was being promulgated in
Europe, those three companies were the major card networks in Europe,
and name has stuck even though the company no longer exists.
--
Garrett A. Wollman
wollman@bimajority.org
Opinions not shared by
my employers.
|
"Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
act to remove constraint from the future. This is
a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
- Graydon Saunders, A Succession of Bad Days (2015)
|
Message-ID: <bIydnVwVUPoaV6b-nZ2dnZfqn_th4p2d@giganews.com>
Date: 4 Oct 2022 05:54:15 +0000
From: "Doug McIntyre" <merlyn@dork.geeks.org>
Subject: Re: Callcentric service still blocked
Bill Horne <malassimilaQRMtion@gmail.com> writes:
> I had never heard of "Cee-Gee-NAT" until Zito Media took over the
> local Cable TV & Internet provider: I was surprised that anyone would
> want to implement any more "NAT" solutions, especially with IPv4 IP
> addresses going for princely sums while IPv6 addresses are practically
> free.
But thats exactly why ISPs implement Carrier Grade NAT, because the
new guard that has formed (after the old guard let everything drop and
rot) don't have the IPv4 resources needed to serve every customer, and
they've done that math that buying a big box to do CGNAT and hide
everybody behind the tiny pool of IPv4 addresses they have is cheaper
than buying enough IPv4 addresses to handle their customer needs in
the traditional sense (well, at least since the rise of NAT and hiding
all onprem networks behind the single IP NAT gateway came about, not
the original intent of the internet of pure peer-to-peer network from
any node to any node, because only IPv6 can make that model work
again.
If they can provide "good enough" service to 99% of the customers,
thats all they are going to do. They aren't trying to serve all
customers with all services that they expect, or at least they may
fool themselves that nobody needs all services, just the limited
set that their big CGNAT box can do.
--
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us
|
