Table of contents: * 1 - Re: The Internet of Things that Talk About You Behind Your Back - David Clayton <dc33box-cdt@yahoo.com.au> * 2 - Re: Class-action lawsuit against Publix seeks $5M for robocalls - Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <n7ci34$h3m$1@dont-email.me> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 04:48:37 -0000 (UTC) From: David Clayton <dc33box-cdt@yahoo.com.au> Subject: Re: The Internet of Things that Talk About You Behind Your Back On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 21:37:08 -0500, Bill Horne wrote: > SilverPush is an Indian startup that's trying to figure out all the > different computing devices you own. It embeds inaudible sounds into the > webpages you read and the television commercials you watch. Software > secretly embedded in your computers, tablets, and smartphones picks up > the signals, and then uses cookies to transmit that information back to > SilverPush. The result is that the company can track you across your > different devices. It can correlate the television commercials you watch > with the web searches you make. It can link the things you do on your > tablet with the things you do on your work computer. ......... This particular "SilverPush" software only exists in a relatively few smartphone apps according to this site: https://public.addonsdetector.com/silverpush-android-apps/ The free app that this company offers scans your device for sneaky things like "SilverPush". -- Regards, David. David Clayton, e-mail: dc33box-cdt@yahoo.com.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <barmar-B80D95.15363516012016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 15:36:35 -0500 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Class-action lawsuit against Publix seeks $5M for robocalls In article <n7cbes$4gt$1@dont-email.me>, Bill Horne wrote: > It alleges Publix's pharmacy made robocalls to customers to tell them > their prescriptions were ready for pickup. I thought the law against robocalls does not apply to calling someone with whom you have an established business relationship. Ahh, I just followed the link, and a critical piece was left out of the excerpt: "But many of the people said they never used Publix's prescription services and did not have a prescription to be picked up." Why would Publix deliberately call people about prescriptions they don't actually have? Do they really think this bait-and-switch tactic will get customers in the door? I'm inclined to suspect it's just a bug in the prescription notice software, not intentional phone spam. Which leaves me wondering if some of the customers with prescriptions didn't get notified, because calls went to wrong numbers instead. That seems more troubling than the unwanted calls. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Mon, 18 Jan 2016