The Telecom Digest for October 09, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 271 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 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: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:25:02 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <pan.2010.10.07.21.24.59.256241@myrealbox.com>
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:10:24 +0000, John Levine wrote:
>>> That's called Paypass. My Mastercard debit card here in the US has
>>> it, but I've never used it. If my credit card had it, I would use it.
>
>>The thing with any unauthenticated transaction system is that is assumes
>>the person with the card (token of authority) is the owner of the card -
>>what happens if your card is lost/stolen and someone goes on a spending
>>spree of multiple transactions for potentially days before you realise
>>and get the card blocked?
>
> You're confusing two things, tap vs. swipe and signed vs. unsigned. I
> swipe my card at my local supermarket, but they don't ask for a
> signature for charges under $50. And even when I do sign, it's on a pad
> the cashier can't see. I've been writing things like BOGUS or NOT ME
> for years, and nobody's noticed.
>
> They have presumably figured out that the small gain in cashier
> productivity from not waiting for th signature outweighs the small
> increase in fraud from not having a signature.
>
I agree, but in Australia they are deliberately phasing out signing for
purchases in the next couple of years to be replaced by compulsory PIN -
allegedly for reducing fraud - and now they are bypassing that entirely
with the "tap" purchases!
Having to pause to sign something still allows a bit more risk for the
fraudsters as far as being identified by the salesperson and/or cameras,
but just being able to swiftly "tap and go" must cut that down a bit.
Also, if a phone gets this valuable role as a payment token, then doesn't
that also increase the chances of the phone being a greater target for
theft?
Maybe it's all calculated that the increased losses are offset by the
increased "productivity", but who will end up paying for this convenience
anyway, I wonder?
--
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: 9 Oct 2010 02:29:45 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <20101009022945.61147.qmail@joyce.lan>
>I agree, but in Australia they are deliberately phasing out signing for
>purchases in the next couple of years to be replaced by compulsory PIN -
>allegedly for reducing fraud - and now they are bypassing that entirely
>with the "tap" purchases!
You are once again confusing the technology used between the card and
the bank with the validation.
The contactless chip is basically the same as the contact chip with
some RFID stuff to talk to the terminal. Either can work with or
without a PIN. If the bank is allowing purchases without either a
signature or a PIN, I hope your government makes it clear that shifts
the risk of fraud entirely to the bank and merchant.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:09:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: System to Trace Call Paths Across Multiple Networks
Message-ID: <i8mu5d$k5k$4@kzdoos.xs4all.nl>
Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote in <p0624086fc8d219cb472e@[192.168.180.244]>:
> ATLANTA - October 5, 2010 - Phishing scams are making the leap from
> email to the world's voice systems, and a team of researchers in the
> Georgia Tech College of Computing has found a way to tag fraudulent
> calls with a digital "fingerprint" that will help separate legitimate
> calls from phone scams.
I mailed the question to the media contact for this publication (who
forwarded it to the author) : "Can this system deal with electromechanical
exchanges with their own noises, clicks and clangs". Electromechanical
exchanges are quite rare but I imagine they add their own specific audio
fingerprints.
The researcher answered that that was not part of the current research and
implementation, but it might be interested to look at that aspect too.
Koos van den Hout
--
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl IPv6: Think ::/0, act ::1.
http://idefix.net/ What are your IPv6 adaption plans?
***** Moderator's Note *****
Koos, does your .sig mean that you favor IPV6, or oppose it?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 20:19:41 EDT
From: Wes Leatherock <Wesrock@aol.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid
Message-ID: <137b85.19fd34a.39dfbd9d@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/7/2010 3:01:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
johnl@iecc.com writes:
> Depends on the flavor of Amex card. Some are charge cards which
> require that you pay in full each month. Some are revolving credit
> cards with the usual unconscionable interest rates. (I have one of
> each, the former billed in euros, the latter billed in dollars.) Some
> aren't even issued by Amex, just Amex branded but run by large banks,
> just like MC and V. Whatever logic there once was for Amex to charge
> more has long gone away, and now they charge more just because they
> can.
For many years Amex had a provision that no bank could issue an
American Express card except their own.
They lost an antitrust suit on that provision several years ago, and I
now have a store-name card which is an Amex card issued by GE Money
Bank.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: History--old MIT dial-up directory
Message-ID: <a913d3dd-c8db-4d6e-973c-b7b55a4a23ba@x7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
Bitsavers has posted an old telephone directory from MIT for terminal
users to reach various computers. The front end instructions include
warnings about using the correct number for the unit, such as a TTY or
1050.
see: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/ctss/CC-230-6_Telephone_Extensions_Mar65.pdf
(The same site has numerous old MIT computer center publicatons.)
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the dial-up computer terminals I saw
always were on dedicated outside lines and did not go through the
organization's PBX. Our high school had one line for its one Teletype
terminal, but there were jacks* for that line set up in several
classrooms, and the Teletype had wheels and a handle so it could be
moved around.
*The old style 4 prong jack. It had a more modern appearance, both
jack and plug being white and round. In a few years it would be
replaced by the mini jack (1977?) still used today.
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Penna asks for review of directory elimination plan
Message-ID: <e6835975-a4d2-4654-8301-e9b57eb128f0@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
The Pennsylvania PUC wants to review the planned elimination of White
Pages telephone directories.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillyinc/Verizon_to_curtail_auto-delivery_of_white_pages_in_Pa_in_2011.html
[I myself prefer using a telephone directory because I've found online
directories loaded with errors. Also, sometimes they're not good with
'fuzzy matches'--the kind of things one can easily find when scanning
for a name.]
Also, a newspaper blogger commetnary on the Verizon data charges:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/technology/Nickel-and-diming_customers_Verizon_style.html
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:17:08 -0400
From: Randall <rvh40.remove-this@and-this-too.insightbb.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Robo-call
Message-ID: <8E15448B-3A0A-4F60-AB2C-7A851AA899F5@insightbb.com>
Several times a week I receive a robo-call from a Verizon number (406)
852-8255 about which google knows very little save for other people
with the same complaint. The call comes in to my mobile phone, but
the robot never leaves a message and when I do answer, it hangs up on
me.
Last night at 10:42 I got one of these things.
What's going on? They're not trying to sell me anything (or if they
are, their robot is malfunctioning).
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:46:09 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Robo-call
Message-ID: <i8nvuj$lib$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 10/8/10 7:17 AM, Randall wrote:
> Several times a week I receive a robo-call from a Verizon number
> (406)852-8255 about which google knows very little save for other people
> with the same complaint. The call comes in to my mobile phone, but the
> robot never leaves a message and when I do answer, it hangs up on me.
>
> Last night at 10:42 I got one of these things.
>
> What's going on? They're not trying to sell me anything (or if they are,
> their robot is malfunctioning).
>
Google bring up list of complaints, but here is what a couple say.
Tammy - Wed, Aug 25th 2010 Rating: 0
I have been harassed by 406-852-8255 for months!! Finally, tonight I got
a live person. The company is Global Travel Network. I will be filling a
complaint with Montana Attorney General immediately. This kind of
harassment needs to stop. I encourage everyone to follow and file a
complaint now that the name of the company is known.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 19:15:35 -0500
From: GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueMist@truely.invalid.dotsrc.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Robo-call
Message-ID: <4cafb428$0$23759$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
On 10/8/2010 9:17 AM, Randall wrote:
> Several times a week I receive a robo-call from a Verizon number
> (406)852-8255 about which google knows very little save for other people
> with the same complaint. The call comes in to my mobile phone, but the
> robot never leaves a message and when I do answer, it hangs up on me.
>
> Last night at 10:42 I got one of these things.
>
> What's going on? They're not trying to sell me anything (or if they are,
> their robot is malfunctioning).
>
Found this on one forum about abusive calling for what it's worth...
"I have been harassed by 406-852-8255 for months!! Finally, tonight I
got a live person. The company is Global Travel Network. I will be
filling a complaint with Montana Attorney General immediately. This kind
of harrassment needs to stop. I encourage everyone to follow and file a
complaint now that the name of the company is known."
No proof that the CID being sent actually belongs to the above company
or if it too is being scammed.
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:27:24 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: 1-800-GOOG-411 becoming history 12-NOV-2010
Message-ID: <4CAF9ACC.9010407@thadlabs.com>
<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/goodbye-to-old-friend-1-800-goog-411.
html>
Back in 2007 we launched 1-800-GOOG-411, a voice-powered directory
assistance service that connects you quickly to businesses across
the U.S. and Canada. On November 12, 2010, we will shut down the
service.
GOOG-411 was the first speech recognition service from Google and
helped provide a foundation for more ambitious services now
available on smartphones, such as:
* Voice Search - search Google by speaking instead of typing.
* Voice Input - fill in any text field on Android by speaking
instead of typing.
* Voice Actions - control your Android phone with voice commands.
For example, you can call any business quickly and easily just
by saying its name.
Our success encouraged us to aim for more innovation. Thus, we’re
putting all of our resources into speech-enabling the next
generation of Google products and services across a multitude of
languages.
If you don’t use a smartphone, and you’re trying to call a
business, you can send a text message with the name and
location of the business to 466453 ("GOOGLE") and we’ll text
you the information, or on Gmail you can use the new phone-
calling features to call any U.S. business free of charge.
Also, if you don’t have the free voice search app pre-
installed on your phone, you can download it here.
Thanks for all the calls, and keep an eye out for all the
innovation to come.
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 (10 messages)
|
| |
or 