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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  


Message Digest 
Volume 29 : Issue 70 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
 Re: It's that time again in North America 
 Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears 
 Re: NYS "bill" in works to outlaw phone ID spoofing
 Re: emergency use of phone in car 
 Re: emergency use of phone in car 
 Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears
 Re: emergency use of phone in car 

====== 28 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: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:48:18 -0500 From: Diamond Dave <dmine45.NOSPAM@yahoo.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: It's that time again in North America Message-ID: <t4uep5dco4vgpnj3evtckkr9mp7afuq35v@4ax.com> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:28:29 -0800 (PST), Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote: > Here in North America we will leave standard time and will adjust > our time one hour ahead for daylight saving time at 02:00 Sunday > 7 March 2010. There's another list of active (and no longer active) time and temperature numbers (and recordings of these systems) at http://www.phworld.org/sounds/modern/timetemp/ And another list is at: http://shaneyoung.com/timeandtemp/list/
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:39:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears Message-ID: <Xns9D3762407C21DSenex@> Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote in news:E6ydnX2gHLvqTgvWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net: > On 3/9/2010 11:21 AM, David Lesher wrote: >> The better analogy is sprinklers. If Hazel Homemaker runs her >> sprinklers, and some 90 F day, the guy walking by pauses on the >> sidewalk to enjoy the spray; she has nothing to whine about. >> >> If he turns them on, then she does. > > Analogies to the "brick and morter" world don't always carry well > into cyberspace. If I were to compare an open WiFi Access Point to > a sprinkler, it would be a situation where Hazel Homemaker objects > to the neighborhood kids running through the spray along with her > own. And if a kid gets hurt on her sprinkler, their parents will sue her. On another tack, what if the open WiFi operator keeps login, password, and other personal information entered by the unauthorized users? -- Paul
Date: 10 Mar 2010 14:47:27 -0500 From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: NYS "bill" in works to outlaw phone ID spoofing Message-ID: <hn8t0f$rbd$1@panix2.panix.com> >On 2/28/2010 8:17 PM, danny burstein wrote: > >Missing from that article (and every other similar one I've seen over the >years) is: HOW is the phone spoofer actually identified and caught? > >If the displayed number is spoofed, how can the real caller be ID'd? Is >such identification (of a spoofer) even possible? I have the impression >it's not [possible] since there are so many violators of the "Do Not Call" >list(s). Ask them where you send the money to. That is about the easiest way to identify them. Also, of course, they do have good ANI. So the telephone company could in theory identify them, and all it takes to get the information out of the telco is a subpoena from a judge. And that subpoena is very easy to get if you're suing anyway... You just open a suit against an unknown party, get the clerk to issue a subpoena to the telco to disclose the party. >Frankly, I wish there was a button on one's phone that one could push upon >receiving a spoofed call that would send 100kV down the line along with a >plague of locusts, a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake, and GPS coords >for a Predator mission missile strike. :-) The problem is not the spoofer, the problem is really the telco. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:19:46 -0500 From: "Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD)" <carl.moore2@us.army.mil> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <E37E0CCA58337B4195F363C78573E732932162@ARLABML03.DS.ARL.ARMY.MIL> Yes, I understand the emergency but am interested in a little more detail. How was the call made (were there one or more others in the car)? It gives a scary first impression that such a call had to be made when the car was going 90-plus miles per hour.
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:02:04 +1100 From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <pan.2010.> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:19:46 -0500, Moore, Carl (Civ,ARL/SLAD) wrote: > Yes, I understand the emergency but am interested in a little more > detail. > How was the call made (were there one or more others in the car)? It > gives a scary first impression that such a call had to be made when the > car was going 90-plus miles per hour. On my Prius (it's an old one), you just have to push the button and then bump the driver lever to Neutral to stop it going forward. Because the accelerator pedal controls two different engines, it actually just sends signals to a computer which does the work of determining which one - or both - to control. I would like to know how this particular acceleration affliction - which has only previously affected other Toyota models, the braking problem is the current Prius issue - has suddenly appeared in such a high-profile example that has now had such a well publicised "happy ending". Perhaps the phone was already conveniently prepared for such an event? I smell a significantly large rodent with this one...... -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:34:47 -0800 From: Bruce L.Bergman <bruceNOSPAMbergman@gmail.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Clueless Woman Calls Tech Show When Her Stolen Wi-Fi Disappears Message-ID: <39dgp55uh07q24d3r3t2a0fggl3cm1a6en@4ax.com> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:50:36 -0600, pv+usenet@pobox.com (PV) wrote: >"Jeter la poubelle SVP" <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> writes: >> More likely, she thought wi-fi was some sort of birth-right, like >> air or water. Sure, you can buy your wi-fi service from an ISP, just >> as you can buy bottled water, but why do so if, like the air you >> breath or the water from your tap, it's just there, free for the >> taking? > >If you listen to the clip, you know exactly what she was thinking, >because she told Leo. She rationalized stealing internet service >because "they charge too much". Ahh, so it's quite all right to take it from someone else who is paying way too much, as long as it isn't /your/ money... If the original clueless party was being honest, she would have offered to locate the system owner and "Buy In" to the WiFi access, trade the System Password for a portion of the bill, and agree to play nice and not over-utilize it. (See Below) But we can see where that went. There are a few serious wrinkles in the issue of sharing WiFi - First, data security. If you allow strangers access to your internal network, they have just bypassed your firewall - and have access to all the computers on your network and all the data stored on them. For a good hacker, once they have breached the firewall and are inside the network, the rest is childs play. Now it IS possible to set it up where the guests on the unsecured WiFi node are outside the LAN firewall and can only access the Internet, but the average user isn't going to figure that one out, or spend extra for the gear needed. Second, you might think "That's all right, I have 'Unlimited' Internet service, I can share" - but that's Unlimited in name only. They DO run a usage meter on you at the Telco or CableCo internet headend, you can find it hidden in the fine print of your contract. If you use more than they consider 'normal usage' (the trigger point figure I usually hear is ~5 GB a month) they can force you to buy 'Business Grade' service or just disconnect you for abuse. (The Telco and CableCo want to conserve bandwidth on their system for premium services like VoIP Phone Service and Movies On Demand.) >Telecom Digest Moderator writes: > >> Well, I've made my position clear already. Using a resource that >> the owner chooses not to safeguard is, to my mind, "acceptable >> use". Just because it is unsecured does NOT mean they can't come after you for using it - IIRC, it was Lowe's Home Improvement who had someone successfully prosecuted for hacking their internal network through an *open and unencrypted* WiFi connection at several of their stores. Yes, 2004, it's Googlable. And another in November 2003 at a medical office. And again, Nicholas Tombros busted for Wardriving to find open WiFi, and sending spam runs out on the victim's internet connection. And hundreds more... >So if you don't lock your garden gate, I can spread a towel and >sunbathe in the flower bed? What's your address? * The fence and gate (even if not locked) are a de-facto No Trespassing sign, but you should add a physical one to be clear. Even with open land, if it's clearly posted at regular intervals around the perimeter it is still closed to casual access. >***** Moderator's Note ***** > >43 Deerfield Road >Sharon Massachusetts USA > >There's a fence around the backyard where I keep my garden: IANALB the >law in this state, as I understand it, is that adults may not trespass >on fenced land even if the gate is unlocked[1]. If you have a different >theory of the law, and are willing to defend it, come ahead. > >My WiFi Access Point is labelled "PrivateHorneFamily", and even if it >were not encrypted I would feel entitled to shoo you away if you tried >to use it: after all, I made my ownership and the restriction clear. > >Bill Horne >Moderator > >1. AFAIK, surveyors enjoy an exception to the rule, but their trespass is > limited to the scope of their work and is done at their own risk. There are many utility and public service workers (OB Telecom reference!) that have the same "scope of work" exemption in most all states, but they still better have a valid reason for the access. "Your strawberries looked ripe..." isn't gonna work. And barring a law enforcement officer in foot pursuit of a suspect, they are still supposed to show common courtesy, knock on your door first and notify you that they need access. "Asking for permission" is the polite way to put it, but with a valid utility easement it's a little more complex to deny access. Been there, Knocked on a few doors wearing a Hard-hat and (occasionally) Climbing Gaffs and all dressed to go vertical. --<< Bruce >>--
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:22:47 -0500 From: "Bob Goudreau" <BobGoudreau@nc.rr.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: emergency use of phone in car Message-ID: <92588B7DFDA5405AAF332D560B5331BD@estore.us.dg.com> Thad Floryan wrote: >> "Prius driver James Sikes called 911 about 1:30 p.m. after accelerating to >> pass another vehicle on Interstate 8 near La Posta and finding that he could >> not control his car, the CHP said." >> [...] > > California law permits driver cell phone usage in an emergency; I > use mine frequently to call 911 reporting road hazards. > > However, as can be read here: > > <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/08/national/a1 93031S51.DTL > > > [...] > A patrol car pulled alongside the Prius and officers told Sikes over > a loudspeaker to push the brake pedal to the floor and apply the > emergency brake. > > "They also got it going on a steep upgrade," said Officer Jesse > Udovich. "Between those three things, they got it to slow down." > > After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the > engine and coasted to a halt. > [...] > > There's more to this than what's being reported publicly. I'll say. My first reaction to reading that article was to wonder why the police officers didn't simply tell the driver to shift the transmission into neutral. I can almost understand why that might not occur to a panicked civilian driver, but the police are supposed to know about such things. Then I read a more detailed AP account of the incident (http://www.wral.com/business/story/7203388/) and discovered that the officers DID tell the driver, repeatedly no less, to shift into neutral. The driver refused to comply, later explaining that he thought that doing so would somehow cause his car to flip over! One might conclude that this is another example of how talking on the phone while driving seems to lead to cognitive impairment. Bob Goudreau Cary, NC
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 (7 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues