TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:53:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 449

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    How to Prepare for One Really Quick Getaway (Monty Solomon)
    For Victims, Repairing ID Theft Can Be Grueling (Monty Solomon)
    On Television, Brands Go From Props to Stars (Monty Solomon)
    Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone and Lipstick (Monty Solomon)
    Free 411 (Joseph)
    What is Area Code 113? (IMAFriend)
    Re: 10 Out of 10 For Idea; 1000 for Implementation (obsidian)
    Re: Linksys Site Survey Shows Info on Nearby Wireless (Thor Lancelot Simon)
    Re: Getting Rid of "Legal" Spam? (A. Berger -- Onlynux)
    Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours! (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: State of the Internet, 2005 (Wesrock@aol.com)
    Re: State of the Internet, 2005 (Henry)
    Re: Age Discrimination by Google; Old People Need Not Apply (B. Margolin)
    "DHCP Client Cannot Obtain an IP Address"  (Patrick Townson)

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; other stuff of interest.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:17:27 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: How to Prepare for One Really Quick Getaway


By DAMON DARLIN

What is the first thing you will grab from your home if your house
floods, catches on fire or comes tumbling down in an earthquake?
Family photos? The pets? The Hummel figurines?

It probably will not be your financial and medical records, the very
things you will need to rebuild your life after a disaster. If you are
like most people, you have documents stashed in various places
throughout your home, perhaps some under lock and key. And with your
mind racing as danger hits, you are not going to have the time or
wherewithal to figure out which ones you need.

In any case, your financial and medical records would be such a large
and unwieldy pile that you would just say forget about it, grab Fluffy
and scramble out of there. Indeed, that is probably your reaction any
time someone suggests you get your records organized.

But wait. Do not run away yet. New technology is making this tedious
task less odious, and surprisingly, it is not that expensive.

All told, you can secure your records in a weekend afternoon. Even
better, doing all this has a wonderful side effect: it can put you in
better financial shape to survive a disaster because you will end up a
lot smarter about how you spend and save money. For instance, one of
the first things to do is compile a list of where everything is --
account numbers and the locations of important documents. The list
will help you or anyone in your family locate things you need for the
insurance adjuster or relief worker. (Download a template for this
information that you can place right on your computer.)

This is really the "if hit by a bus" list that financial planners have
been recommending you compile for your heirs. If you think of the list
that way, you will be reminded of your mortality and you will not want
to write it. But think of the families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita or by California wildfires, and the psychological barrier
collapses. The list becomes a much easier sell now, said Brent Neiser,
a director for the National Endowment for Financial Education. "It
forces you to think," he said.

Here is what else you have to do to protect your records and yourself:
    ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/business/01docs.ready.html?ex=1285819200&en=afb8b0c8f19b21aa&ei=5090

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:25:50 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: For Victims, Repairing ID Theft Can Be Grueling


By TOM ZELLER Jr.

Paul Fairchild, a 34-year-old Web developer in Edmond, Okla., has
never spent $500 on fine tobacco. He has never slaked a shoe fetish
with $1,500 charges at Manolo Blahnik and Neiman Marcus, nor has he
ever bought diamonds online, furs in SoHo, or anything at
e-Luxury.com. He has never owned an apartment building in Brooklyn,
and he has never peddled flesh.

Over the last two years, however, his credit report has suggested
otherwise.

In retelling his ordeal with identity theft, Mr. Fairchild has
developed the acid sarcasm and droll nonchalance of a standup comic -
a defense mechanism, his wife, Rachel, says, that belies two years of
hell.

"Once this happens, you can't believe how deep the rabbit hole goes,"
Mr. Fairchild said.

Indeed, in a year of prominent cases of stolen or lost consumer
information -- from the hacking of university computers and the
disappearance of backup tapes at Citigroup, to fraudulent downloads
from the databases of companies like ChoicePoint and LexisNexis -- the
rabbit hole seems to be getting deeper.

About 10 million Americans fall victim each year to identity theft,
according to the Federal Trade Commission. And in about a third of
those cases, victims see far more than their existing credit card
accounts tapped. Their private information is used by thieves to open
new accounts, secure loans and otherwise lead parallel and often
luxurious lives.

For victims like Mr. Fairchild -- and two others who recounted their
troubles and shared their sometimes vast paper trails -- it can be an
unnerving, protracted whodunit, with collection agents demanding
payment for cars they have never driven, credit card accounts they
never opened, loans they never obtained, and myriad other debts
accrued by shadowy versions of themselves.

Prosecutions are rare, and police investigations -- when they do
happen -- are time-consuming, costly and easily stymied. A 2003 study
by the Gartner Inc. consulting firm suggested that an identity thief
had about a 1 in 700 chance of getting caught.

"It's a crime in which you can get a lot of money, and have a very low
probability of ever getting caught," Mari J. Frank, a lawyer and
author of several books on identity theft, said in an interview.
"Criminals are now saying, Why am I using a gun?"

Just how many of the millions of new cases each year stem from the
widely reported cracks in the nation's electronic data troves is
impossible to know. A study by Javelin Strategy and Research
indicated that the most frequently reported source of stolen
information, at least among those who knew how it happened, was
decidedly low-tech: a lost or stolen wallet or checkbook. And some
experts have suggested that consumers are much more likely to fall
victim to a rogue employee -- at a doctor's office, say, or a
collection agency -- than to a gang of hackers infiltrating a database.

But however their information is obtained, victims are still left with
the unsettling realization that the keys to their inner lives as
consumers, as taxpayers, as patients, as drivers and as homeowners
have been picked from their pockets and distributed among thieves.

"Once it happens, you can never be certain that it won't happen
again," said Beth Givens, the director of the Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse, a consumer advocacy group. "You can never let your
guard down."

Mr. Fairchild, Kenneth Wasserman and Toshka Cargill -- each from
different parts of the country and from varying economic backgrounds
 -- know precisely what Ms. Givens means. Their experiences with
identity theft follow.

 ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/technology/01theft.html?ex=1285819200&en=442e59c391c4c42c&ei=5090


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a good article in the New York
Times Tehcnology Section, and I suggest you may want to look for it
in the paper and read more of it:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html (see tchnology section).

Also I want to mention a relative of mine who has had identity theft
problems in recent months. He says the bank has been on his case about
a 'house he owns' (he owns no such thing) which has a mortgage payment
overdue. He told them several times he was not the owner (as a result
of ID theft someone bought it in _his_ name) and telling the bank is
like talking to a brick wall. I suggested to him since it is 'your
building' (as per the bank statement) just tell them to go ahead and
foreclose on it; take it back.  (wink!) It should be interesting if
bank decides to do that.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:40:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: On Television, Brands Go From Props to Stars


By LORNE MANLY

LATER this month on "The Office," Michael Scott, the painfully
clueless regional manager of a paper supply company, will embrace
casual Fridays in his own inimitable style. Eager to show off his
newly trim physique, particularly his backside, the character -- played
by Steve Carell -- will proudly model his new jeans to his alternately
befuddled and appalled employees. And to anyone who will listen, he
will proclaim something along the lines of "I love my new Levi's."

This cringe-inducing bit of comedy will have been made possible in
part by Levi Strauss. The company and the creators of "The Office,"
the NBC critical darling, are willing participants in the next
generation of product placement. No longer are brands mere props on
the set or the supporting stars of reality shows. Advertisers and
their representatives are increasingly working with a show's writers
and producers and the network's ad sales staff to incorporate products
into the story lines of scripted shows as part of more elaborate
marketing deals.

What Hollywood and Madison Avenue euphemistically call "brand
integration" was hard to miss last season. Gabrielle Solis, Eva
Longoria's character on ABC's "Desperate Housewives," found herself
hard up for money and reluctantly agreed to don an evening gown and
extol the virtues of a Buick LaCrosse at a car display. Amanda Bynes's
character on the WB's "What I Like About You" raved about Fruity
Pebbles and competed against a friend to be in the next Herbal
Essences commercial. And the producers of "Bernie Mac" on Fox wove
mentions of Rolaids throughout an episode as they unleashed the
dyspeptic Mr. Mac to rant about life's injustices and his stomach
pains.

Network, advertising and production executives say that this season,
more and more brands will venture outside the confines of 30-second
ads. They may have no choice: As technology and clutter blunt the
effectiveness and reach of the commercial spots that have underpinned
the television business for nearly 50 years, the various players are
scrambling to adapt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/business/yourmoney/02place.html?ex=1285905600&en=232cbf3a10ec701a&ei=5090

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 21:47:36 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Note to Drivers: Lose the Phone (and Lipstick)


By DAMIEN CAVE

GREENWICH, Conn., Sept. 29 - When a new state driving law goes into
effect here on Saturday, Will Suarez will have to put down his Treo
650 cellphone and stop digging into his briefcase while cruising
Connecticut's streets and highways in his Audi sedan.

The new law, one of the toughest in the nation, goes beyond just
prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cellphones while behind the
wheel. Those pulled over for speeding or other moving violations can
be fined $100 for any behavior that distracts them from driving --
glancing at a newspaper, typing on a BlackBerry, applying lipstick
while looking in the rearview mirror or turning to yell at the kids in
the back seat.

It is a prospect that Mr. Suarez, 42, like many drivers across
Connecticut, can hardly believe is possible.

"I'm in sales, so I work out of my car a lot," he said Thursday, after
driving into a parking lot here with his phone pressed against his
ear. "It's an infringement of my personal freedoms."

Drivers nonetheless will have to get used to it. Four years after New
York passed the nation's first cellphone ban, 22 states and Washington
have limited cellphone use while driving. And in the last year, many
of those states have gone beyond merely regulating cellphone use among
drivers, cracking down on distractions inside cars.

Tennessee and Virginia, going further than most, have passed laws
prohibiting the display of pornographic videos in vehicles. In Nevada,
lawmakers recently increased penalties for drivers who kill someone
while eating, putting on makeup or using a cellphone. In Washington,
district lawmakers have banned driving while "reading, writing,
performing personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured
cargo" or while playing video games. At least a half-dozen other
states, including Alaska, Louisiana, Delaware and Wisconsin, are
considering bans on activities that pull drivers' attention away from
the road.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/nyregion/01cell.html?ex=1285819200&en=29aaf3a7b8603881&ei=5090

------------------------------

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Free 411
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:43:30 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


New ad supported directory assistance.  1-800-FREE-411
(1-800-373-3411)  

Before the number is given you have to listen to a ten second
advertisement.  The service also has auto connect to the number given.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried it, it is a national service,
handled as much as possible by interactive voice recordings. But their
voice recognition software does not seem to be very good. After three
or four attempts to find out what I wanted "a radio station, KOSN in
Stillwater, OK" it gave up and transferred me to an operator.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: IMAFriend <imafriend@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: What is Area Code 113?
Date: 2 Oct 2005 15:59:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


I keep getting a phone call from area code 113.  Does anyone have any
idea what that is?  

Thanks,

DougB


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is bogus, as far as 'area codes' are
concerned. It is either some sort of number for special billing
purposes, or a deliberatly misprogrammed entry as is sometimes done
by companies such as telemarketing firms or collection agencies to
prevent you from knowing their real number.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: obsidian <obsidian@vlanderen.terra.sol>
Subject: Re: 10 Out of 10 For Idea; 1000 for Implementation
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:23:30 +0200
Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =-


Coming from UK to France on the Eurostar train, unleashes a flood of
SMS messages (with accompanying audible alerts) to each GSM to the
like of "Bienvenue aux reseaux xxx". Bloody annoying! And unnecessary
since we _know_ we are in France.


obsidian

Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.443.7@telecom-digest.org:

> I was driving down I-95 today from Philly to Baltimore, and for most
> of the time my GSM phone (which is on Fido/Rogers out of Canada) was
> showing that it was on AT&T Wireless as the carrier.  As I came past
> the airport, it switched over to showing T-Mobile as the carrier.  A
> few seconds later I received a text message from T-Mobile (subject is
> "905") welcoming me to the USA and telling me to dial home use 011- or
> "+" and the number.

> Its nice to see that T-Mobile is looking for non-US phones and letting
> you know what to do to "call home", but it isn't set to deal with
> region 1 phones, as to call back to Toronto from Philly on T-Mobile,
> you definitely wouldn't dial 011 to start the call.

> Perhaps someone from T-Mobile will see this and tweak their system so
> it doesn't send this to Canadian phones when roaming in the USA.

> Chris

------------------------------

From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Linksys Site Survey Shows Lots of Info on Nearby Wireless Networks
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:16:02 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com


In article <telecom24.448.6@telecom-digest.org>,
William Warren  <william_warren_nonoise@speakeasy.net> wrote:

> Pat, the reason those "in the know" about WEP and its weaknesses don't
> like to talk about it is that we sometimes use it for our customers.

> The problem is that WPA, although it has much better security, is
> notoriously hard to get running, especially between nodes made by
> different manufacturers. I've had occasions where I promised to
> encrypt a customer's WiFI network and was forced to use WEP rather
> than admit I couldn't get WPA to function.

This strikes me as gross, willful negligence -- with an attempt to
conceal the same from your client ("rather than admit I couldn't get
WPA to function").  If one of your clients suffers for it, I think it
would be entirely just for you to suffer the consequences.

Real network security professionals do not behave as described above.

William, please don't tar us all with the sticky brush of your own
behavior.

Thor Lancelot Simon	                          tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
 to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."  - Noam Chomsky

------------------------------

From: A. Berger -- Onlynux <andresberger@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Getting Rid of "Legal" Spam?
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:29:00 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


To get multiple email addresses you only need a domain and hosting and
you can get both for $29 per year.

After this, you can create unlimited aliases for free and if you
follow this system (and some other recommendations) for spam
prevention you will never receive automated spam and very few "legal"
spam.

Regards,

 Andres Berger Garcia
 Director
 Onlynux.com

 Parque Leoncio Prado 285. Magdalena. Lima, Peru
 Telefax: (511) 261-3760
 http://www.onlynux.com -- email: aberger@onlynux.com

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:telecom24.438.6@telecom-digest.org:

> A. Berger -- Onlynux wrote:

>> The best way to get rid of spam is always give an email alias to
>> everybody, this way all people will have a different email address and
>> when you want to stop the spammer simply delete the alias, also you
>> will know for sure who the spammer is.

> I do not have the resources to get multiple email addresses.

> Indeed, it would be inconvenient to use different addresses every time
> I did e-business.  Usually a company will send a confirmation memo, so
> I would have to keep careful track of multiple addresses.  Too much
> trouble.

> Anyway, all of my e-business so far (the little I do since I avoid it)
> has not had a problem until this particular time.  As mentioned, this
> is not some little fly-by-night outfit, but a large ongoing business.

> Someone mentioned "Yahoo" offers 'free' email.  Are these hard to get?
> Do you have to give information to Yahoo to get one?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To get a free Yahoo mailbox all you
> need to do is go to http://yahoo.com and sign up for one, plus answer
> a few simple questions which are mainly for security purposes. You
> will have an opportunity at that point to sign up for 'enhanced' service
> features (re the amount of space alloted, spam filtering, etc, which
> you can either accept or decline. I have a couple of their mailboxes,
> and they come in handy. You'll also have an opportunity to sign up for
> features like Yahoo Groups ( a sort of newsgroup thing; this Digest
> has a 'group' there), My Yahoo (a home page with news headlines that
> you choose to format as desired), Yahoo Messenger (which is free group
> or one-on-one chat), Yahoo Personals (romanticly-oriented personal
> ads, this last feature is not totally free, you pay to transmit and
> receive email of a more personal nature.) Yahoo has a lot of good
> features, all mostly advertiser supported.  You do have to give some
> information, as noted above, mostly for security verification
> purposes.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject:  Re: United States Says No! Internet is Ours!
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:58:46 +0000 (UTC)
Organization:  MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


In article <telecom24.447.5@telecom-digest.org>, PAT writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For the life of me, I do not understand
> why United States insists on keeping total control of Internet for
> itself, rather than at least sharing control with other countries.

I do not understand why the United States Government remains under the
illusion that it has any such thing.

> I mean, just consider how much spam, scam, illegitimate advertising,
> viruses, spyware, etc -- in aggregate total about half of the
> internet -- ICANN has fostered since its inception.

I also do not understand why PAT remains under the illusion that ICANN
has anything whatsoever to do with any of these things.  Is NANPA
responsible for the sleazy MCI marketing campaigns of yesteryear?


-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman    | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wollman@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those    | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL.      | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will try to explain this once again. To
say "United States has control of the internet" is a short way of
making a longer statement, to wit: "The internet is controlled to a
large extent by the 'root servers'; the computers which direct the 
requests for connections to one place or another. Since the 'root
servers' are by and large in the United States, or under the
supervision of the United States, therefore, for all intents and
purposes the internet is controlled by the United States." Only instead
of making that longer statement, we often times just abbreviate it by
saying, "United States has control of the internet". Yes, there are
exceptions to that, but they are inconsequential.  

When we say "ICANN runs the internet" that also is a short way of
telling a longer story, to wit: "Every person or company or
organization in the United States who wishes to have an internet
address in one of the traditional suffixes for addresses such as
'.com', '.org', '.net' or others is required to deal not only with an
ISP or a registrar to obtain the desired address (that is, if they
wish to have recognition of that address and some way for others to
see their pages or reach them by email), but they must also agree in
writing to a very one-sided 'contract' presented to them by ICANN and
make an annual extortion payment required by ICANN which goes to fund
the overseas trips and other friviolities in which ICANN engages
itself. If you fail to sign the required one-sided contract and/or
fail to make your annual extortion payments then you do _NOT_ get your
domain name (in effect a domain name allows for two way conversation
with the outside world.) This contract you are required by ICANN to
sign tells about all of ICANN's rights; how _they_ if they choose to
do so can revoke your right to use the name, and the rules _you_ have
to follow. Of course it has nothing to say about you having any rights
such as the right to be free of others sending spam or scam or viruses
or the right to protect your domain name except through some sort of
feeble arbitration which they (ICANN) control. Basically, when you
deal -- as you must! -- with ICANN in order to be on the net, you do
it their way or you don't do it at all.  And no, NANPA is or was not
responsible for the sleaze which oozes out from MCI each day, since 
NANPA never required any contracts pertaining to behavior of its
users the way ICANN does. ICANN _could_  have written contracts for
users with some protections for users built in if they had wanted to,
but Vint Cerf did not and does not want that to happen. So when we
make the statement "ICANN controls Internet", that is a short form of
the longer proceeding paragraph. If NANPA were to require contracts
from users -- telco or otherwise -- which outlined standards of 
behavior required (**as ICANN could do if they were anything other
than a tool of big business**) then in that case, yes, NANPA would
have some responsibilty for MCI's sleazy activities. 

So before you take umbrage or exception to the statements "United
States controls Internet"  or "Internet is controlled by ICANN" go
back and fill in the blanks _entirely_ with the realities of life.  PAT] 

------------------------------

From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:01:55 EDT
Subject: Re: State of the Internet, 2005


In a message dated 10/1/05 14:28:36 EDT14:28:36 EDT, 
editor@telecom-digest.org writes:

> Hoaxes, rumors and urban legends

> Bill Gates is giving away free money! Muggers at malls are using
> perfume to render victims unconscious! A cafe at an upscale department
> store charged a woman $250 for a cookie recipe! Urban legends like
> these make the rounds of inboxes every day, and every day someone is
> duped into believing the rumor and forwarding it.

> According to Snopes.com, which identifies and tracks urban legends,
> the Bill Gates rumor, which began making the rounds in 1997, is still
> the most circulated urban legend on the Internet.

> Experts advise checking your facts before forwarding messages to your
> friends and family. Want to know if an item is true? Check out one of
> the many Web sites devoted to investigating and debunking urban myths
> and legends.

Urban legends far predate the internet.  The hoax or urban legend about 
the Neiman-Marcus restaurant charging $250 for a cookie recipe goes back at 
least a generation or two before the internet.

> Chain letters

> "Forward this message to 10 people and DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!" the
> writer implores. Messages like these have been pouring into inboxes since
> the inception of e-mail -- taking the old-fashioned chain letter from the
> post office to cyberspace. Chain letters are a particularly annoying form of
> spam because they often come from friends and promise negative consequences
> for not forwarding the message (bad luck or a lost chance at riches, for
> example).

> Choosing to forward a message, however, could get you in trouble. Many
> people don't know it is illegal to start or forward an e-mail chain letter
> that promises any kind of return. Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for
> mail fraud.

Chain letters were common at least as far back as the Depression years 
(1930s) and were just as illegal then, proliferating by U.S. mail.

> Phishing:

> The messages look official, down to the spoofed e-mail addresses in
> the from line, but if the message asks for personal information such
> as credit card or Social Security numbers, chances are it's a
> fake. Phishing schemes trick users into revealing personal
> information, and scammers use this data to steal the identities of
> their victims.

> A 2004 study by the Internet Crime Complaint Center found that e-mail
> and Web pages are the two primary ways in which fraudulent contact
> takes place. The Federal Trade Commission recommends avoiding filling
> out forms that come in e-mail messages and that users never e-mail
> personal or financial information.

Studies focusing not just on the internet but on the world as whole
indicate that stealing personal information by other means, especially
"dumpster diving" and other stealing of information on paper or by
personal contact are seven or eight times more prevalent than fraud by
"phishing."

Frauds and annoyances did not start with the internet.  The internet
just provided another medium for carrying them out.

Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite correct that all of these
evils did not begin with internet; all the internet did was increase
their velocity; make them easier to pull off and remain aloof from
where punishment is concerned. And I was one of the first people,
twenty or so years ago, when people -- parents let's say -- were
fussing about the junk on the internet and how their kids were getting
'more educated and mature' (to put it politely) than was appropriate
for their ages to defend the internet. I told people, if you can get
the information in a library, then there is no reason you ought not to
be able to get it on the internet. Of course, the catch was, no one
would go to the library and spend hours in dusty stacks and shelves
looking for material not age appropriate when they could spend five
minutes or less and a few key strokes to get the same information, and
I _still_ feel that way; but even the library does not allow folks to 
just walk in and deface the place, leave junk all over, as people
to willingingly on the internet these days.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry)
Subject: Re: State of the Internet, 2005
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:24:40 +0300
Organization: Elisa Internet customer


TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

> A look at the internet as it stands now, in 2005, from a compilation
> originally prepared by CNN.com:


> Chain letters

> "Forward this message to 10 people and DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN!" the
> writer implores. Messages like these have been pouring into inboxes since
> the inception of e-mail -- taking the old-fashioned chain letter from the
> post office to cyberspace. Chain letters are a particularly annoying form of
> spam because they often come from friends and promise negative consequences
> for not forwarding the message (bad luck or a lost chance at riches, for
> example).

> Choosing to forward a message, however, could get you in trouble. Many
> people don't know it is illegal to start or forward an e-mail chain letter
> that promises any kind of return. Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for
> mail fraud.

'Anyone doing so could be prosecuted for mail fraud.'

???

How can that possibly be correct? First of all, it suggests that the
post office has some sort of jurisdiction over e-mail, which it
clearly does not (mail fraud is investigated by postal
inspectors). But secondly, '_anyone_ doing so...' is preposterously
Americano-centric.

Cheers,

Henry


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't think other countries besides
the United States have laws against postal fraud; that postal fraud/
other crimes involving the mail and the investigation of same is
purely an American custom?  Many countries investigate it intensively.
Even Nigeria has laws against postal fraud. 

Further, American postal inspectors at least, have claimed
jurisdiction over certain kinds of email fraud, as well they
should. The United States takes the position -- and has been backed up
in court a few times -- that _you_ need not make a deposit in a a mail
receptacle to commit fraud, nor remove something from a mail
receptacle; *inducing someone else to do so as part of a fraud scheme*
makes you culpable. For example, you fill out an application on line
for some product or another, but do so fraudulently, and as a result,
some innocent third person person puts something in the mail to you or
to someone else.  Postal inspectors claim if even some small portion
of the transaction takes place via US Mail and there was fraud
involved, then the rest of the transaction -- even the 90 percent or
better which was handled totally 'online' comes under their
jurisdiction as well. Here is an example: I go on line and give your
email name, real name and street address for a magazine subscription. 
The magazine arrives, the publisher in good faith asks you to pay for
it. I committed fraud by causing that to happen. Postal inspectors can
investigate it.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Age Discrimination by Google; Old People Need Not Apply for Work
Organization: Symantec
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:23:00 -0400


In article <telecom24.448.2@telecom-digest.org>,

Associated Press News Wire <ap@telecom-digest.org> wrote:

> Google Prevails in Age Discrimination Suit

> A California judge has sided with Google Inc. in an age discrimination
> lawsuit filed by a former manager who alleged the online search engine
> leader had fired him because he didn't fit in with the company's
> youthful culture.

What's with the clearly biased subject line of the posting?  The
article says that the court found that Google does *not* practice age
discrimination.  How does that translate into "Old People Need Not
Apply"?


Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess not everyone agrees with the 
judge's decision in that ruling, particularly when the man's
supervisor _did_ make the statement (to the terminated employee) "You
do not fit in the youthful culture here at Google."   PAT]

------------------------------

From: ptownson <ptownson@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Help Needed with DHCP on Remote Laptop
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:00:00 CDT


Help wanted: I have a laptop computer here running Win NT from 1997.
I have a NetGear Wireless card in a slot. It seems to be correctly
installed; that is, the drivers are there, the little green light on
the 'television icon' is present, it _says_ it has a very good link,
and should be working fine. But the laptop reports "The DHCP client
could not obtain an IP address". Furthermore, no one else on the
network can see the laptop. The laptop cannot connect to the internet
nor see anyone else on tne network either. Yet it claims the link
is present and very strong. Can anyone tell me what is wrong?  Why
is it unable to obtain an IP address via DHCP?  Thanks for the help.

PAT

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as
Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums.  It is
also gatewayed 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.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

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://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

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 TELECOM Digest V24 #449
******************************