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

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 
Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 263 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?   
  Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?     
  Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?   
  Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent?     
  Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? 
  Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? 
  Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up? 
  Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up? 
  Project 'Gaydar': At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy


====== 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, 23 Sep 2009 09:40:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <2521703f-2203-44ce-b4dd-ac6605040e9c@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> On Sep 15, 10:50am, ed <bern...@netaxs.com> wrote: > Quoting telecom-ow...@telecom-digest.org: > > > > > Message Digest > > Volume 28 : Issue 254 : "text" Format > > Sam Spade wrote: > > > > Isn't this a case where prudent planning can go a long way? I'm > > > thinking in terms of calling customer service before I leave home, and > > > going over my travel plans with them. Perhaps getting a supervisor's > > > name if there is any hint of a run around? They are the folks who > > > finally do the billing. > > > > ***** Moderator's Note ***** > > > > Please write up a report of your experiences and submit it here: I'm > > > very interested in seeing how you're received when you make that > > > request. > > > If you are in a state where to do so is legal, I'd suggest recording > > the call, so you'll have irrefutable proof of what they told you. > > > Dave > > If you call a company that plays an automated attendant message > like, "For training and quality control, this call may be recorded", > does that constitute consent to record the call? > > They don't say, "*we* may record this call" or "you may not record > this call", they say "this call may be recorded." Sounds like > clear consent to me! After all, the reason I want to record my > conversations with any company is to ensure quality control--i.e., > that they keep their word. > > Does anyone on this list know if this legal argument ever been used > in any state or federal court? I think that "may" denotes permission so that I can record at my end to help me review my telephone etiquette. Also permission for them if you continue with call, and that "can" denotes possibility. "May be" could also denote possibility.
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:09:38 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <barmar-BD36C2.15093823092009@news.eternal-september.org> In article <2521703f-2203-44ce-b4dd-ac6605040e9c@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> wrote: > I think that "may" denotes permission so that I can record at my end > to help me review my telephone etiquette. Also permission for them if > you continue with call, and that "can" denotes possibility. "May be" > could also denote possibility. The full sentence is usually "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality or training purposes." They're clearly describing what THEY might do, not granting YOU permission. And even if you do interpret it as granting permission, it's only granted for certain purposes; you can record it for quality or training purposes (who would the customer be training?), not necessarily to preserve evidence for a potential lawsuit. I suppose you might be able to make the case that reporting them to the BBB would be a quality issue. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:39:02 -0700 (PDT) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <ac371523-b8d8-4acc-b66f-7ecebd241d2e@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> On Sep 23, 2:57pm, "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTva...@Queensbridge.us> wrote: > > Does anyone on this list know if this legal argument ever been used > > in any state or federal court? > > I think that "may" denotes permission so that I can record at my end > to help me review my telephone etiquette. Also permission for them if > you continue with call, and that "can" denotes possibility. "May be" > could also denote possibility.- Hide quoted text - The issue really isn't the legality of recording the call, after all, if you record a call for your own private purposes no one will know about it. The issue is if a recording of a call is admissable as evidence to support one side in a dispute. (Evidence in a court, consumer protection agency, arbitrator, grievance panel, etc.) My own guess is that in states that allow recording it could be, but in states that prohibit recording clear consent, (such as the beep tone or formal notice) is required. My own speculation is that one of two things would happen in a dispute with recorded evidence: 1) The othe party, upon seeing you have a definitive record of the conversation clearly supporting your position, would pay up. -or- 2) The other party would fight it, using legal tricks to wear you out, or would disappear altogether (e.g. a fly-by-night outfit). Many disputes that can't be easily resolved are that way because the evidence is not aboslutely clear; rather, both sides made errors, had a misunderstanding, failed to do something required, etc. In other words, it's not a black and white issue.
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:22:05 -0500 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Does "This call may be recorded" consitute consent? Message-ID: <kcidnQGNKJDqeCfXnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@posted.visi> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > The issue really isn't the legality of recording the call, after all, > if you record a call for your own private purposes no one will know > about it. > > The issue is if a recording of a call is admissable as evidence to > support one side in a dispute. (Evidence in a court, consumer > protection agency, arbitrator, grievance panel, etc.) I would disagree. In "two party permission" states, doing the recording without permission isn't just inadmissible as evidence, it's a criminal act that could get you fined or jailed. > My own guess is that in states that allow recording it > could be, In one-party states, it is legal and permissible for either party to record the conversation, without any notice whatsoever. I would _assume_ that the only question in such states would be whether the recording you made was a complete and unedited record of the conversation (and, of course, whether it unambiguously supported your position). > but in states that prohibit recording, clear consent (such as the > beep tone or formal notice) is required. And the question was, does the statement "This call may be recorded" constitute formal consent (I would think that "quality control" would include the accuracy of the information you were given). And if it does not constitute consent, why would it protect the party making the statement? But neither of us is a lawyer, and it is always possible that the answer to the question has nothing to do with logic. Dave
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Message-ID: <df1e4a83-f777-4c31-ba4b-f0b6037d742e@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> On Sep 15, 10:50am, "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <tto...@telusplanet.net> wrote: > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >As to anti-trust issues with cellphone companies, I'd like to know why > >none offers a low-use phone where the minutes do not expire. Many > >people would like to have a phone for very occasional use and no user > >maintenance, but pre-paid phones require buying minutes that require > >if not used and end up being almost as expensive as a regular line. > >Seems to be a low-use plan might be $15/month with a $1/minute when > >used. > > I'm currently on a $100 365 day plan with Virgin Mobile in > Canada. Along with my starting $25 or $30, or whatever it was I'm > now down to $95 and have had the phone since December. So I've > used about $35 in 10 months at a rate of 30 cents per minute and > same again for long distance if applicable. > > I'm their worst nightmare. Hehehehe > > BTW I don't mind paying the 30 cents per mniute for my usage. > However 30 cents for long distance is ridiculous. It should be > more like 5 or 10 cents per minute. Telus's, the local telco is > 4 cents per minute anywhere in Canada or the US. Telus Mobility, > their cell division, also charge 30 cents per minute long > distance on prepaid cell phones. You can add a OneSuite Canadian access number to your Virgin [or any other Canadian cell phone] for long distance as low as 2 a minute Local access in Toronto, Vancouver+ Or Canadian 800# for higher rate: I use them here in USA on my home phone. I understand that Virgin Canada phones will not work in USA, And USA Virgin will not work in Canada. Is that correct?
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:55:15 GMT From: "Tony Toews \[MVP\]" <ttoews@telusplanet.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider? Message-ID: <9b2lb5pq17pg8anaem5l6n9imjrj44hvh1@4ax.com> "www.Queensbridge.us" <NOTvalid@Queensbridge.us> wrote: > You can add a OneSuite Canadian access number to your Virgin [or any > other Canadian cell phone] for long distance as low as 2 a minute > Local access in Toronto, Vancouver+ Or Canadian 800# for higher > rate: I use them here in USA on my home phone. Do you have a specific URL for how this works with Virgin Mobile phones conveniently? Or is this a generic feature that works with all prepaid long distance calling cards requiring you do dial a number, enter your (I'm sure loooong) PIN, and then enter the phone number you really wanted to dial? > I understand that Virgin Canada phones will not work in USA, And USA > Virgin will not work in Canada. Is that correct? AFAIK all Canadian prepaid phones do not work in the USA and vice versa. But postpaid Canadian phones do work in the USA and vice versa. Although frequently at obscene roaming rates and ridiculous charges just for entering a roaming area. Tony -- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/ Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:06:00 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up? Message-ID: <op.u0qn4agyo63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:24:58 -0400, what Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote ended with: > I still don't fully understand why, over 5 years, about 15 numbers were > saved in the phone and about 100 or so in the SIM (knowing (now) that > storage into the SIM is the default). With my current ancient Nokia 6610, which allows me to specify whether I prefer SIM or Phone memory to be used for address book entries, even if I choose SIM any phone number that's too long (or too complicated) for the SIM to store without truncation gets stored on the phone instead. ("Too long ... complicated": one with several PAUSE or WAIT entries, for example -- 1-800-123-4567w456456456p789p123, or the like.) Or perhaps they're numbers you once just decided (too long ago to remember doing so, or why) to move to the phone's memory area. Also: the RAZR in particular, as I recall, will permit VoiceDialing (or do I mean one- (or two- ?) digit "instant" dialing instead?) only for numbers stored in the phone's memory, not for those stored on SIM. Perhaps that is why those 15 or so are in the phone? Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:50 -0700 From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: What could/would cause a SIM card to belly-up? Message-ID: <4ABAE0E2.4060601@thadlabs.com> On 9/23/2009 7:22 PM, tlvp wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:24:58 -0400, what Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> > wrote ended with: > >> I still don't fully understand why, over 5 years, about 15 numbers were >> saved in the phone and about 100 or so in the SIM (knowing (now) that >> storage into the SIM is the default). > [...] > Also: the RAZR in particular, as I recall, will permit VoiceDialing > (or do I mean one- (or two- ?) digit "instant" dialing instead?) only > for numbers stored in the phone's memory, not for those stored on SIM. > Perhaps that is why those 15 or so are in the phone? BINGO! That's exactly correct. Those were numbers I entered with the "Voice Dialing" option way back in 2004/2005. I had actually forgotten about that capability (and pictures, videos and other stuff associated with any given number) forcing numbers to the phone's memory (5MB) vs. the SIM memory (64KB) since I don't use the phone while driving except for a 911 call. That also explains the "odd" icon alongside those few numbers -- Motorola docs (for the RAZR) are not really comprehensive.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:30:34 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Project 'Gaydar': At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy Message-ID: <p062408d4c6e0a5d74095@[10.0.1.3]> Project 'Gaydar' At MIT, an experiment identifies which students are gay, raising new questions about online privacy By Carolyn Y. Johnson, Globe Staff | September 20, 2009 The Boston Globe It started as a simple term project for an MIT class on ethics and law on the electronic frontier. Two students partnered up to take on the latest Internet fad: the online social networks that were exploding into the mainstream. With people signing up in droves to reconnect with classmates and old crushes from high school, and even becoming online "friends" with their family members, the two wondered what the online masses were unknowingly telling the world about themselves. The pair weren't interested in the embarrassing photos or overripe profiles that attract so much consternation from parents and potential employers. Instead, they wondered whether the basic currency of interactions on a social network - the simple act of "friending" someone online - might reveal something a person might rather keep hidden. Using data from the social network Facebook, they made a striking discovery: just by looking at a person's online friends, they could predict whether the person was gay. They did this with a software program that looked at the gender and sexuality of a person's friends and, using statistical analysis, made a prediction. The two students had no way of checking all of their predictions, but based on their own knowledge outside the Facebook world, their computer program appeared quite accurate for men, they said. People may be effectively "outing" themselves just by the virtual company they keep. ... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/20/project_gaydar_an_mit_experiment_raises_new_questions_about_online_privacy/
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 (9 messages)

Return to Archives**Older Issues