30 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for October 5, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 251 : "text" Format
====== 30 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 that person, or email address
owner.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without the explicit written consent of the owner of
that address. 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: 04 Oct 2011 04:45:08 GMT
From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@geeks.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone users have to wait a few microseconds
Message-ID: <4e8a8f54$0$79795$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net>
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes:
>This is from CNET:
> ... lost and who possessed it--has been unintentionally erased. ..
>Now, as much as I love to be a free advertising vehicle for Apple, I've got
>to ask: am I the only one who thinks this is a little /too/ brazen?
Having worked directly with security vendors and a variety building
surveillance types, as well as the people who maintain such things, I
don't find it too far fatched at all.
More times than not, I come in to a situation where the video
surveillance is ancient analog cameras going to a motion sensor tape
VCR recording system. The tapes almost always never get rotated
properly, and if they do, they are probably warn out to the point of
viewability or are completely unusable.
Even if they do have a working system, having anything going back more
than a couple weeks is speculative at best. Being "erased" isn't much
different than already written over as the tape was recycled.
Of if it is a digital system, the video has already rolled off the
back and the space recycled. Its not very common at all to put
multi-terabyte RAID disk systems into video surveillance (although I do).
More likely a single 500GB drive for "current" systems.
The building owner put in the video system as a checklist item for
their insurance and never typically cared about it again.
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:09:44 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: iPhone users have to wait a few microseconds
Message-ID: <20111004140944.GB15980@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 04:45:08AM +0000, Doug McIntyre wrote:
> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> writes:
> >This is from CNET:
> > ... lost and who possessed it--has been unintentionally erased. ..
>
> >Now, as much as I love to be a free advertising vehicle for Apple, I've got
> >to ask: am I the only one who thinks this is a little /too/ brazen?
>
> Having worked directly with security vendors and a variety building
> surveillance types, as well as the people who maintain such things, I
> don't find it too far fatched at all.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear: I think the whole "lost iPhone" story is a
brazen publicity stunt, and I'm surprised that the mainstream media
haven't labelled it as such. This is the SECOND time that Apple has
fired this cannon.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:53:35 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Security Vulnerability In HTC Android Devices
Message-ID: <p0624080dcab040157638@[10.0.1.9]>
Massive Security Vulnerability In HTC Android Devices (EVO 3D, 4G,
Thunderbolt, Others) Exposes Phone Numbers, GPS, SMS, Emails
Addresses, Much More
Posted by Artem Russakovskii
October 3, 2011
I am quite speechless right now. Justin Case and I have spent all day
together with Trevor Eckhart (you may remember him as TrevE of
DamageControl and Virus ROMs) looking into Trev's findings deep
inside HTC's latest software installed on such phones as EVO 3D, EVO
4G, Thunderbolt, and others.
These results are not pretty. In fact, they expose such ridiculously
frivolous doings, which HTC has no one else to blame but itself, that
the data-leaking Skype vulnerability Justin found earlier this year
pales in comparison. Without further ado, let me break things down.
The Vulnerability
In recent updates to some of its devices, HTC introduces a suite of
logging tools that collected information. Lots of information. LOTS.
Whatever the reason was, whether for better understanding problems on
users' devices, easier remote analysis, corporate evilness - it
doesn't matter. If you, as a company, plant these information
collectors on a device, you better be DAMN sure the information they
collect is secured and only available to privileged services or the
user, after opting in.
That is not the case. What Trevor found is only the tip of the
iceberg - we are all still digging deeper - but currently any app on
affected devices that requests a single android.permission.INTERNET
(which is normal for any app that connects to the web or shows ads)
can get its hands on:
...
http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/10/01/massive-security-vulnerability-in-htc-android-devices-evo-3d-4g-thunderbolt-others-exposes-phone-numbers-gps-sms-emails-addresses-much-more/
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:28:41 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple Launches iPhone 4S, iOS 5 & iCloud
Message-ID: <p0624081bcab10d0bb082@[10.0.1.9]>
Apple Launches iPhone 4S, iOS 5 & iCloud
iPhone 4S Features Dual-Core A5 Chip, All New Camera, Full 1080p HD
Video Recording & Introduces Siri
CUPERTINO, California-October 4, 2011-Apple today announced iPhone
4S, the most amazing iPhone yet, packed with incredible new features
including Apple's dual-core A5 chip for blazing fast performance and
stunning graphics; an all new camera with advanced optics; full 1080p
HD resolution video recording; and Siri, an intelligent assistant
that helps you get things done just by asking. With the launch of
iPhone 4S also comes the launch of iOS 5, the world's most advanced
mobile operating system with over 200 new features; and iCloud, a
breakthrough set of free cloud services that work with your iPhone,
iPad, iPod touch, Mac or PC to automatically and wirelessly store
your content in iCloud and push it to all your devices.
...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/04Apple-Launches-iPhone-4S-iOS-5-iCloud.html
***** Moderator's Note *****
I've never used an iPhone, or felt the need to have a "1080P" screen
in the palm of my hand. ISTM that Apple is trying to pack every
digital device known to man into a palm-sized box that is (1) very
easy to lose, and (2) way too expensive, and (3) has a tiny screen
that Uberman's X-Ray vision would be strained to see.
Frankly, the Apple PR agent's gushy superlatives put me off. That's
partly my age, but also because I've seen miracle devices before, and
they never live up to their hype. I don't feel the need to be
entertained while I'm accomplishing miraculous feats of bureaucracy as
I draw admiring stares from all the women at the airport/train
station/polo meet/lunar landing, and while Apple's PR department is
doing a good job training Twenty-somethings to imagine themselves in
that commercial, they're not impressing me, or (I suspect) any other
potential buyer over the age of Forty.
Digital electronic devices are not toys, not magic, and definitely not
cheap, but their most serious deficiency is that they are not a
substitute for human judgement and critical thought. I always thought
that the whole idea of being able to access informaiton was to be able
to make informed judgements concerning it, and to report on my
opinions about it, quickly and concisely. There is no cell phone, no
matter how many extra features it may offer to those with a lot of
disposable income, that can help me to do that. I'm fairly sure that
having the world's accumulated literature at my disposal won't make me
any smarter than I already am - not even to mention the difficulty of
finding accurate information when "the truth", although "out there",
is always mixed in with several cesspools of hype and disinformation
and lies. What Apple's minions can't provide is wisdom and experience,
although IMNSHO those whom invest in Apple's gadgets will find
themselves gaining the former at the expense of the later.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Copyright (C) 2011 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:51:37 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cell phone privacy cases slated for U.S. Supreme Court's new term
Message-ID: <a8aa2$4e8b71a9$4038e0ce$1781@PRIMUS.CA>
Bill Horne wrote:
> This is also from CNET:
> His attorneys argue that such precise turn-by-turn tracking
> requires a search warrant signed by a judge--a step that
> D.C. police chose not to take.
Would police have required a warrant to tail the suspect? I realize
that technology can change things in very fundamental ways, but if the
principle in question is turn-by-turn tracking then such a ruling
could threaten the legality of 'warrantless tailing.' (That said, as
an individual I am concerned that the the relative ease, low expense,
and scalability of using such devices could make widespread tracking
of people for no apparent reason viable.)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:56:07 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cell phone privacy cases slated for U.S. Supreme Court's new term
Message-ID: <a23a2$4e8b71a9$4037f0ce$1781@horne.net>
"Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Bill Horne wrote:
>> This is also from CNET:
>> His attorneys argue that such precise turn-by-turn tracking
>> requires a search warrant signed by a judge--a step that
>> D.C. police chose not to take.
> Would police have required a warrant to tail the suspect? I realize
> that technology can change things in very fundamental ways, but if
> the principle in question is turn-by-turn tracking then such a
> ruling could threaten the legality of 'warrantless tailing.' (That
> said, as an individual I am concerned that the the relative ease,
> low expense, and scalability of using such devices could make
> widespread tracking of people for no apparent reason viable.)
I'm concerned that tracking movements of a vehicle can give a
misleading picture of the driver and of those he comes into contact
with. While a particular person might be doing something unlawful,
that does not mean that every stop (s)he makes is in pursuit (pun
intended) of illegal ends.
Consider a newsdealer: if the police have a record of a suspect's car
stopping at his stand every day, they might presume that he is also a
drug dealer, or a money launderer, or a messenger, etc. He doesn't
deserve that just because he's available to do business. The same
things applies to a hamburger stand, a street person panhandling at a
traffic light, and even to a cleric at a church: all are in a position
to facilitate illegal activities, but are unlikely to do so, and their
choice of a livelihood which brings them into daily contact with both
saints and sinners shouldn't cast suspicion on their good name.
The U.S. Constitution contains a specific prohibition against
quartering troops in private homes: it was a tactic the British
government used to keep track of the populace in the years leading up
to the revolutionary war. I think that provision is there in order to
prevent the government from trying to turn mundane gossip or ordinary
people "blowing off steam" into the appearance of criminal acts. So
too, their whereabouts: I don't want the government to know where I
am, because it's not the government's business to know.
I have been saying for some years now that the last vestige of privacy
in America is that citizens are not required to divulge the names of
their friends, and that information is rapidly accumulating in
commercial databases that are available to anyone with the price of
access. Although most of the data gathering activity currently being
conducted is being done with the consent of those who use things like
instant messenger or facepage, there is too fine a line between "the
government" and "firms the government has influence over" for me to be
comfortable with any lessening of the privacy rights I enjoy.
Bill, who encrypts all his emails to keep the FBI from finding out how
boring his life is.
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:23:35 -0700
From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Cell phone privacy cases slated for U.S. Supreme Court's new term
Message-ID: <n4hsl8-p78.ln1@radagast.org>
In article <a8aa2$4e8b71a9$4038e0ce$1781@PRIMUS.CA>,
Geoffrey Welsh <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> His attorneys argue that such precise turn-by-turn tracking
>> requires a search warrant signed by a judge--a step that
>> D.C. police chose not to take.
>Would police have required a warrant to tail the suspect? I realize
>that technology can change things in very fundamental ways, but if the
>principle in question is turn-by-turn tracking then such a ruling
>could threaten the legality of 'warrantless tailing.'
I suspect that the distinction is that LE actually attached a device
to his vehicle.
If I recall correctly, there's a strong precedent in case law that a
person doesn't have an "expectation of privacy" from simply being
observed, when they are in public. "Warrantless tailing" gains its
legitimacy from this, in part... you aren't "searching" a person by
watching them drive or walk around in a public space.
Actually placing a transmitter (or a recording GPS tracker) on a
vehicle crosses a line, in the opinion of many people, in that it does
invade a person's private "space" to some extent.
> (That said, as
>an individual I am concerned that the the relative ease, low expense,
>and scalability of using such devices could make widespread tracking
>of people for no apparent reason viable.)
Yes, that's a significant part of the concern. Here in the U.S. the
courts have recognized that certain forms of surveillance or
monitoring can have a "chilling effect" on Constitutionally-protected
rights (e.g. of expression or association). E.g. "If the police can
track me without a warrant, then I don't think I'll go to that talk
about political corruption in the city government... no telling who
the police might tell and then I'd end up having zoning problems."
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:
http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do not wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:38:27 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Nine facts about SIP
Message-ID: <bd113$4e8b7ca2$4038e0ce$4675@PRIMUS.CA>
Bill Horne wrote:
> I'm curious if others agree with "John".
> SIP Trunks aren't trunks. There is no physical circuit, just a
> voice path routed over a carrier's IP network using VoIP
> technology.
They can be. To me, a trunk isn't a specific physical medium such as a loop
start copper pair or a T1 demuxed from a fiber pair, it's a communications
path that permits access to or from multiple endpoints such as a line pool
for outgoing calls from multiple of handsets or an ISDN PRI supporting DIDs
to those same handsets. If there's a physical characteristic that is common
to trunks (as opposed to single lines as we might have at home or even
Centrex deployments) it would be that it provisions a switch, not a handset.
In that respect, SIP can be a trunk or not a trunk. (The phone just within
my reach uses SIP in a non-trunk capacity; none of my clients currently use
SIP trunking but it has been available from multiple telcos in this area for
some time.)
> SIP trunks can be used for more than just voice communication.
> SIP can be used for video, presence, instant messaging and audio
> over IP broadcasting.
I'll take their word for it, though telecom is chock full of examples of
people figuring out how to get one medium through a path designed for
another (usually voice): videophones, FAX machines, VoIP, etc. Of course,
if you already have IP transport, then there are umpteen (posisbly better)
protocols available to support a wide variety of other communication
requirements... and those protocols might be more firewall-friendly than
SIP.
> SIP enables a single network for an organization's local, long
> distance, toll free and data transmission, allows for
> centralized management of all those services and provides
> operational efficiency with centralized designs and pooled
> trunks.
Geez, my home POTS service provides local and long distance calling, I'm
sure I could get a toll-free number for it, I've used a modem on it, and
it's all billed on one invoice. Ooh, and if I had an old-fashioned phone it
would light up during a blackout, too. <grin>
> SIP allows for greater competition in the market place because
> the service bypasses the public switched telephone network owned
> by the incumbents.
Most of the rest of these questions center not on SIP but on how [anything]
over IP is not necessarily subject to the telcos' traditional limitations
and costs. Many authors better than I have written about the implications
of the way that the internet moves service differentiation to the edge of
the network, as opposed to the traditional method of having a relatively
simple device in front of the user and the services implemented in the
network switches.
> SIP allows an organization to purchase only the call paths they
> require; they aren't forced to purchase trunks in increments of
> 23 and 24.
I'd be surprised if I'm the only reader here who has ever purchased
fractional T1 voice service. Of course, there are fixed costs associated
with the T1 that mean the costs don't scale linearly with the number of
voice channels... but the same applies to anything-over-IP, where service
good enough for one channel is probably good for a few, but when you
approach that limit you need to take a leap up to the next tier of IP
transport. Ironically, some of those tiers are derived from the same T1
(and its multiples) that the statement bemoans.
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:25:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Nine facts about SIP
Message-ID: <j6g149$ahb$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <bd113$4e8b7ca2$4038e0ce$4675@PRIMUS.CA>,
Geoffrey Welsh <gwelsh@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> SIP trunks can be used for more than just voice communication.
>> SIP can be used for video, presence, instant messaging and audio
>> over IP broadcasting.
>
>I'll take their word for it, though telecom is chock full of examples of
>people figuring out how to get one medium through a path designed for
>another (usually voice): videophones, FAX machines, VoIP, etc. Of course,
>if you already have IP transport, then there are umpteen (posisbly better)
>protocols available to support a wide variety of other communication
>requirements... and those protocols might be more firewall-friendly than
>SIP.
Actually, SIP was designed specifically with broader applications in
mind; that's why it leaves the media layer to another protocol (RTP).
In that it reflects the experience from SAP and from mid-nineties work
on the "Integrated Services Internet" and multicast conferencing.
Unfortunately, the presence of middleboxes leaves many of those
designs undeployable. There are, of course, other protocols
available, including most notably MGCP, but SIP seems to have won the
day.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: news report on cell phone spam - 'tough'
Message-ID: <937b0f18-c164-4937-9362-47a4cd053b0c@u13g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
A local TV news report discussed the problem of spam texts and phone
calls to cell phones, where the callee often has to pay for them.
Many people interviewed resented the intrusion of such calls and texts
and their cost.
The news report said "it's hard for [users] to stop this on cell
phones". (I don't know if that's true) They quoted the carriers as
saying they will credit customers for such calls upon request.
(Not mentioned was how difficult it sometimes can be to reach a
carrier's customer service to get such a credit.)
For myself, after receiving and billed for several unsolicited spam
messages I had my carrier turn off texting, a feature I don't use. I
can't help but wonder if the carriers and telephone network
administrators could do more to stop spam and illegal solicitation
calls. (It's also illegal to call a nursing home resident, but sales
people would call my mother.)
[public replies, please]
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:32:04 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: DOJ Document Shows How Long Telcos Hold Onto Your Data
Message-ID: <CAFY5RQ+zsm_C14tYGWTL1=MAOef5wW3keRxS3=y7NQcpmaEfvg@mail.gmail.com>
This is from techdirt:
With the Justice Department believing that it can get all sorts
of data from telcos without any oversight or without a warrant,
it seems rather important to know what kind of info your mobile
operator is keeping - and for how long. The ACLU, via a Freedom
of Information Act request, was able to get a "for law
enforcement use only" document that shows how long the carriers
hold on to what data ...
(Scroll down for a readable copy)
Rest:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110929/13165516137/doj-document-shows-how-long-telcos-hold-onto-your-data.shtml
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:00:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Apple Special Event October 2011
Message-ID: <p06240827cab1668fbf45@[10.0.1.9]>
Apple Special Event
October 4, 2011
Watch streaming video from today's special event.
Streaming video requires Safari 4 or 5 on Mac OS X Snow Leopard or
Lion, Safari on iOS 3 or later, or QuickTime 7 on Windows
http://apple.com/apple-events/october-2011/
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.
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) 2011 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 (12 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues