Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 4 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: The Medium: We Interrupt This Program Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Re: Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Re: Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure? Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure? Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure? Re: Any user reviews of the Magic Jack? ====== 27 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, 3 Jan 2009 22:44:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: The Medium: We Interrupt This Program Message-ID: <p06240831c585e0e16261@[10.0.1.6]> The Medium We Interrupt This Program By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN The New York Times January 4, 2009 My video will resume after this ad, in 26 seconds. The video is really a movie - or at least it was a movie. I don't know what to call it while I'm watching it on my computer screen, with my browser set to Hulu, the streaming-video site. Let's call it "Wimbledon." Released in 2004, it's a romantic comedy about tennis that I could have seen for $8 or so in a theater four years ago or ordered from Netflix, caught on HBO or bought as a DVD for $4 on eBay. But I didn't. In fact, I only now discovered it in the modest movie lineup on Hulu. After a rocky start during which it was hazed as just another slick effort to upstage the fun, do-it-yourself YouTube, Hulu became great. The Associated Press just named Hulu its Web Site of the Year for 2008. However, there are ads. All videos (TV shows, movies, clips, news) are prefaced on Hulu by unavoidable commercials; you can't click to shut them off or fast-forward through them. With longer videos, ads appear at regular intervals - but it's just one ad, usually a tightly produced 15- to 30-second spot, rather than a TV-style cluster. Some movies have sponsors who offer "limited commercial interruption" - about four ads per film. Cutting into "Wimbledon," this sweet, brisk British mood-lifter in which Paul Bettany falls in love with Kirsten Dunst, is an Ad Council public service announcement for healthful eating. Annoying. At the top of the movie, I swear Halls cough drops announced that it was presenting this movie without ads. Or was it without many ads? ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/magazine/04wwln-medium-t.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:51:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Message-ID: <p06240842c585fe7b5292@[10.0.1.6]> Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Jason Mick January 1, 2009 Privacy advocates concerned about a strict new law in Georgia which removes sex offender's online privacy The latest scuffle over online privacy is brewing up in Georgia. An aggressive new law is set to take effect today which will force sex offenders to hand over their internet passwords, screen names, and e-mail addresses to the government for monitoring purposes. Several other states also have efforts that track sex offender's email and screen names. However, Georgia, which has 16,000 registered offenders, will be the first state to demand the sex offenders' passwords as well. A similar law in Utah was already struck down by a federal judge, who ruled that it violated the privacy rights of an offender who challenged it. However, that ruling was rather narrow as it applied to an offender tried on a military conviction who had never been in Utah's court or prison system. ... http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13832 ***** Moderator's Note ***** Hold on to your hats: this is the start of a wild ride up and down the roller coaster of public-opinion. It is a classic case of a Camel's nose under the edge of the shelter that covers our all-important civil right to keep our papers and effects free from unreasonable search and seizure. Sex offenders? No problem: most voters will say "f*&^ 'em, who cares?". Convicted fellons of all stripes? Rerun previous tape. Persons charged with crimes but not yet convicted? Hmmm. Once the apparatus needed to monitor someone who <insert your least palatable, most loathsome, and repulsive action here>, IT WILL BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be careful what you wish for: security and freedom both have a price. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 08:40:52 -0800 From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Message-ID: <siegman-5822A0.08402204012009@news.stanford.edu> In article <p06240842c585fe7b5292@[10.0.1.6]>, Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote: > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > Hold on to your hats: this is the start of a wild ride up and down the > roller coaster of public-opinion. It is a classic case of a Camel's > nose under the edge of the shelter that covers our all-important civil > right to keep our papers and effects free from unreasonable search and > seizure. > > Sex offenders? No problem: most voters will say "f*&^ 'em, who cares?". > Convicted fellons of all stripes? Rerun previous tape. > Persons charged with crimes but not yet convicted? Hmmm. > > Once the apparatus needed to monitor someone who <insert your least > palatable, most loathsome, and repulsive action here>, IT WILL BE USED > FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be careful what you wish for: security and freedom > both have a price. Thank you for this; it's _very_ well put. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:04:47 -0600 From: gordon@hammy.burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Sex Offenders in Georgia Stripped of Privacy, Must Hand Over Passwords Message-ID: <r-ydnYFIYaES3fzUnZ2dnUVZ_gkAAAAA@posted.internetamerica> >Privacy advocates concerned about a strict new law in Georgia which >removes sex offender's online privacy > >The latest scuffle over online privacy is brewing up in Georgia. An >aggressive new law is set to take effect today which will force sex >offenders to hand over their internet passwords, screen names, and >e-mail addresses to the government for monitoring purposes. Several Online providers need to strictly enforce their terms of service on this matter: you're not allowed to give out your password to someone else, and if you do, [they are supposed to] turn off the account. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 01:22:01 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure? Message-ID: <200901040622.BAA10584@ss10.danlan.com> dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: |Dan Lanciani wrote: |> dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: |> |Credit bureaus sell |> |information about you... Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in |> |any way by their sale of untrue information. |> |> While I certainly have no objection to such a rule, it does nothing |> to help the "identify theft" problem where the credit bureau provides |> true information about the victim... | |The "theft" problem is more properly a problem of negligence in |properly identifying someone when issuing them credit. Yes, of course. And given the current structure the simplest solution is credit inquiry locks. |So the perp claims he's you, runs up big bills, and doesn't pay them. | |That's really not much of a problem for you, until the credit bureau |starts telling people it was you who ran up the bills, thus affecting |your credit. It's a problem for you when the people who think you borrowed money from them try to recover. They often have lawyers who know how to use the court system to get judgements. |If they were liable for the truthfulness of the |information, you'd have recourse. You would not have recourse for the harm caused by the debt which is now in your name. |(They could, of course, contract |with businesses who report to them, that those business would |reimburse them for any claims due to the falsehood of the reports.) |Say, for your losses because you could not get telephone service. In between arguing with the creditors who think you owe them money you can argue with the credit bureaus' lawyers about the actual losses caused by your inability to get telephone service. And of course, both are going to demand that you prove that it was not in fact you who did run up the bills. I'd rather just prevent the problem in the first place. Consumer "recourse" is vastly overrated. Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 10:05:54 -0500 From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure? Message-ID: <MPG.23ca9a5477dd3b3298984a@reader.motzarella.org> In article <200901040622.BAA10584@ss10.danlan.com>, ddl@danlan.com says... > dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: > > |Dan Lanciani wrote: > |> dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: > |> |Credit bureaus sell > |> |information about you... Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in > |> |any way by their sale of untrue information. > |> > |> While I certainly have no objection to such a rule, it does nothing > |> to help the "identify theft" problem where the credit bureau provides > |> true information about the victim... > | > |The "theft" problem is more properly a problem of negligence in > |properly identifying someone when issuing them credit. > > Yes, of course. And given the current structure the simplest solution > is credit inquiry locks. > > |So the perp claims he's you, runs up big bills, and doesn't pay them. > | > |That's really not much of a problem for you, until the credit bureau > |starts telling people it was you who ran up the bills, thus affecting > |your credit. > > It's a problem for you when the people who think you borrowed money > from them try to recover. They often have lawyers who know how to > use the court system to get judgements. > > |If they were liable for the truthfulness of the > |information, you'd have recourse. > > You would not have recourse for the harm caused by the debt which is > now in your name. > > |(They could, of course, contract > |with businesses who report to them, that those business would > |reimburse them for any claims due to the falsehood of the reports.) > |Say, for your losses because you could not get telephone service. > > In between arguing with the creditors who think you owe them money you > can argue with the credit bureaus' lawyers about the actual losses > caused by your inability to get telephone service. And of course, both > are going to demand that you prove that it was not in fact you who did > run up the bills. I'd rather just prevent the problem in the first > place. Consumer "recourse" is vastly overrated. One glitch is that the creditors must PROVE that you agreed to the debt. Most often this is in the form of you signature on a piece of paper. By the time the original creditor does the charge-off and then sells then debt to a collector, the collector only gets a print out andno real supporting paperwork. After so many years even the original debtor destroys paperwork. If you have patience you can beat the system. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:50:02 -0800 From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure? Message-ID: <Ex78l.15960$Ws1.2095@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> T wrote: > In article <200901040622.BAA10584@ss10.danlan.com>, ddl@danlan.com > says... >> dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: >> >> |Dan Lanciani wrote: >> |> dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote: >> |> |Credit bureaus sell >> |> |information about you... Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in >> |> |any way by their sale of untrue information. >> |> >> |> While I certainly have no objection to such a rule, it does nothing >> |> to help the "identify theft" problem where the credit bureau provides >> |> true information about the victim... >> | >> |The "theft" problem is more properly a problem of negligence in >> |properly identifying someone when issuing them credit. >> >> Yes, of course. And given the current structure the simplest solution >> is credit inquiry locks. >> >> |So the perp claims he's you, runs up big bills, and doesn't pay them. >> | >> |That's really not much of a problem for you, until the credit bureau >> |starts telling people it was you who ran up the bills, thus affecting >> |your credit. >> >> It's a problem for you when the people who think you borrowed money >> from them try to recover. They often have lawyers who know how to >> use the court system to get judgements. >> >> |If they were liable for the truthfulness of the >> |information, you'd have recourse. >> >> You would not have recourse for the harm caused by the debt which is >> now in your name. >> >> |(They could, of course, contract >> |with businesses who report to them, that those business would >> |reimburse them for any claims due to the falsehood of the reports.) >> |Say, for your losses because you could not get telephone service. >> >> In between arguing with the creditors who think you owe them money you >> can argue with the credit bureaus' lawyers about the actual losses >> caused by your inability to get telephone service. And of course, both >> are going to demand that you prove that it was not in fact you who did >> run up the bills. I'd rather just prevent the problem in the first >> place. Consumer "recourse" is vastly overrated. > > One glitch is that the creditors must PROVE that you agreed to the debt. > Most often this is in the form of you signature on a piece of paper. > > By the time the original creditor does the charge-off and then sells > then debt to a collector, the collector only gets a print out andno > real supporting paperwork. > > After so many years even the original debtor destroys paperwork. > > If you have patience you can beat the system. For several years I had to fight with creditor and collection scum in Florida. I never lived there or even been there, and all the companies involved were local business. When I got one cleared another would pop up. One little known trick is one collection agency will sell the claim to another one until it gets to one that tries to collect a few dollars. I have told them I'm not the person who they are looking for, but that never seemed to faze them, one told me he did not care if I was not the person, his job with to bug me until I paid. By that time I took to recording all calls, I forwarded it to his company and the Florida Attorney General. End of calls and the charge off for that one was removed from the credit files. Also the credit agency will remove the report if there was no reply from the creditor, but it then can be added back in. That is why I feel that if there were criminal laws they would care a little more. Now if something pops up I know it is not me since all of files are blocked and I have only one credit card with my credit union. -- The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 17:41:17 -0800 (PST) From: jdp76il@gmail.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Any user reviews of the Magic Jack? Message-ID: <0c4c34f6-f318-414c-947f-e4b56d7810e2@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com> On Dec 19 2008, 1:45 am, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote: > In article <20081217234434.96029.qm...@simone.iecc.com>, jo...@iecc.com > says... > > > Telecom Digest Temporary Moderator wrote: > > >Is "Magic Jack" any different than another VoIP service, such as > > >Vonage? Would your son have been able to accomplish the same goals > > >with a Vonage router in his luggage? > > > It's VoIP in a dongle, priced at a flat $40/yr.  You can take along a > > conventional VoIP box and it works (my US Lingo box works great here > > in the UK), but it's a lot bigger. > > Actually the first year is $40 while subsequent years are $20. > > > On the other hand, you need some sort of phone to plug into the Magic > > Jack, so if you have a laptop, it might be easier to use Skype, which > > can call US landlines for 2.4c/min or $2.95/mo with a month to month > > subscription.  When I travel internationally, I use Skype with my > > laptop's built in microphone and a pair of tiny earbuds. > > No you don't need a phone for the MagicJack device. If you have a > headset for the computer (earphone and mic) you can use it with > MagicJack. I like the fact that it's flexible like that. > > And as was mentioned ealier, the mp3 voicemail sent as email is great. Magic Jack is [a] good product: we have now had ours for 1 year. ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm- unications 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 Patrick Townson. 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 currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 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: mailto: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 Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 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 (8 messages) ******************************