The Telecom Digest for September 07, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 242 : "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: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:08:43 -0500
From: hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <Q96dnRCD3shGmxnRnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@megapath.net>
>> Um, what's the practical difference between this and a poster on the wall
>> with the phone numbers of the various businesses, so you can just call
>> them from your phone?
>
>John, I suppose the core feature for this kind of 'stick your phone in a
>slot and it gets auto-dialed to some number, or gets called back by some
>number' idea is that it could provide a fast-track, instant-response,
>one-hand, no dialing, no breaking your train of thought, no having to
>learn or remember or key in a number, and auto-authenticating way of
>getting connected to someone or somewhere, in a great variety of
>situations, travel and otherwise.
>
>I have no idea at all whether this is technically possible with current
>phones (likely not), but I'm sure it could be. The concept of making it
>a 'slot' of some kind, rather than just a 'swipe' over a surface, would
>be to make it less likely that your phone would be inadvertently or
>unintentionally (or even surreptitiously) triggered wen you're just
>walking past.
What fraction of modern cell phones include a camera?
How about just printing a bar code on the corner of the poster,
pointing your cell phone at it, and poking a button?
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:13:19 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <siegman-3EB8C9.17131805092010@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
In article <20100905232516.16278.qmail@joyce.lan>,
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> >> >to a given listing), and the board would set up a call directly from it,
> >> >to the relevant hotel or service? (Or from them, to your cellphone?)
> >> >
> >> >Technically feasible, with current cellphones? (via Bluetooth, or
> >> >whatever?)
>
> Man, I hope not. Can you imagine the security issues if random pieces
> of equipment could place calls from your phone?
>
> Even if it's distance limited, imagine a kiosk saying "stick your
> phone in the slot for $5 of free airtime/upskirt pictures of Paris
> Hilton/whatever"
I have at least some appreciation of the security issues involved. But:
* To the extent that this mythical "slot" was located in a reasonably
trustworthy location -- e.g, inside an airline terminal, or built into
the entryway or entry gate of a major building or public facility -- one
could have some reasonable trust that it was put there with the approval
of and is under the control of a responsible and reachable organization.
(The terminal, after all, is going to get a little revenue from helping
set up those contacts.)
* If the slot operated only to _set up_ an outgoing call -- i.e., you
had to pull the phone out of the slot, look at what was on the screen,
then hit SEND yourself -- then it would become exactly as safe as the
poster you suggested.
* And if the slot operates only to get you a call back to your
cellphone from the hotel or the shuttle service or the remote gatekeeper
-- well, OK, then one could envision a system where you had a readable
card that stored only your name and cellphone number. Swipe it in a
slot, and the relevant service provider or gatekeeper calls you back.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I'm sorry, but I don't think it words that way. Although some early
adopters might be willing to try it out, you'd have to dispell the
public's impression of the risks before going forward, and that means
you'd have to find a way to dispell years of Hollywood Hype about
computers and those that design them.
The average cellphone user will be afraid that such a device might -
1. Steal the address book and send ads to all their friends, with
their own email address.
2. Change their phone so that it shows ads all the time.
3. Steal their cell number and sell it to anyone they choose.
4. Use the number to keep track of where they fly and who they talk
to.
5. (Pick your worst nightmare - how about your wife seeing the list of
calls you make while you're away from home?)
Trust me, the TV stations will have a field day mining users' fears
about Big Brother. It's just not viable at this time: it might become
so in the future, but that would require several generations to grow
up with, trust, and (dare I say it?) understand public-key
cryptography and trusted third-parites.
People judge every new innovation from the framework of belief and
experience that has grown around the old technology that they are used
to, so every change must overcome the same barriers of habit,
inertia, supperstion, fear, and prejudice.
Ask youself what happened to the system some start-up company tried to
install at airports, which was supposed to give frequent travellers an
advantage in pre-registration for security checks. Only a few
travellers were interested: like the "Fast Fill" dongles that turn
on a gas pump without need of inserting a credit card, the process
didn't save enough time to be worthwhile.
Do you remember the "Cue Cat"? It was an optical bar scanner that
users could attach to their PC in order to scan bar codes from
magazines or TV so that users could get information about products
that interested them. It died a quick and expensive death, because
Radio Shack hadn't realized that computer users don't want to make the
process of selling them things any easier, and also because they
resented the thought that their magazines - one of the few relics of
their childhood still unaffected by modern technology - would be part
of the never-ending stream of come-ons they already see on the average
web site.
Cell phones are private. They are personal appliances, dedicated to
one user, and as such they can't be used as dongles, because their
owners won't trust others with them.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 18:16:34 -0500
From: Jim Haynes <jhaynes@cavern.uark.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Blocking Junk Calls
Message-ID: <KIOdnSRG6oBPuRnRnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
On 2010-09-04, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> I wish I could get my bank to stop calling both my home and business
> numbers trying to get me to sign on for the 'privilege' of letting them
> charge me $35 should I overdraw by 1 cent.
>
> I think I might stop by my local branch and tell them if they DON'T stop
> calling that I'll just withdraw my money and put it in a credit union.
>
That was the only way I could get Wells Fargo to quit calling me trying to
sell me insurance, after they bought a bank where I had an account.
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:21:23 -0500
From: gordonb.f60ga@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: 911-only public phone
Message-ID: <4rudnXg4_qXe8RnRnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>
>Out of curiosity: Suppose you could hold your personal cellphone up to a
>panel on such a board (or stick it into a small slot on the board, next
>to a given listing), and the board would set up a call directly from it,
>to the relevant hotel or service? (Or from them, to your cellphone?)
I would assume that it costs an extreme amount of money. Perhaps
enough to buy an airport, a hotel, or a car-rental company. This
sort of functionality just begs for a scam.
Someone would figure out a way to overcome distance limitations,
and cause everyone's phone to call the inventor's 900 number. Then
he'd set it up at a place with a lot of pedestrian traffic (say,
an airport entrance or airport security checkpoint, a sports stadium,
at a train station, ATM, store, etc.). Distance limitations can
be overcome by using more power (who cares if a megawatt burst burns
out a few phones and causes a few cateracts and brain cancers? The
electricity is probably stolen from the venue owner anyway.)
>Technically feasible, with current cellphones? (via Bluetooth, or
>whatever?)
I'll suggest an alternative, which might require minor changes in
existing smartphone apps: put up a QR 2-D barcode with some kind
of prefix indicating it's a phone number (http: indicates web,
perhaps tel:8555551212 indicates it's a phone number), and invite
users to scan it. (Does Japan already use QR codes for phone
numbers?) The app asks if you want to call the number. Also put
the number up there in plain text for those without smartphones or
those who want to write it down for later. Put up other details
that calling potential customers should know, like "YOU ARE AT DFW
AIRPORT BAGGAGE CLAIM AREA #37A".
A setup where you can read the phone number off the phone will be
useful to collect telemarketing call lists (even if no call is made
immediately). That's also a big security problem.
>Potential advantage: Once the cellphone connection was established,
>you'd be able to move on, pick up your luggage, grab some food, whatever
>(and, your phone would have captured the number, in case you wanted to
>reconnect later on).
Same applies if you dial it yourself (with or without the QR codes).
>Security concerns? Maybe the wireless connection would only set up the
>call on your display panel -- you'd have to press Send to actually send
>it.
Even that sounds like a great way to do a denial-of-service attack.
Keep popping up windows to prevent anyone in the area from calling
911 during, say, a bank robbery.
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 04:23:48 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <i61qck$1hvl$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <i617fb$p38$3@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A good example is "1e100.net" which on the surface looks really
>bogus.
Until you realize just what number that is, and which takes its name
from it.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
***** Moderator's Note *****
Isn't 1e100 = 1?
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:47:59 +1000
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: A Strong Password Isn't the Strongest Security
Message-ID: <pan.2010.09.06.05.47.58.659723@myrealbox.com>
On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:00:59 +0000, David Kaye wrote:
> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote:
>
>>Here's one threat to keep you awake at night: Keylogging software, which
>>is deposited on a PC by a virus, records all keystrokes - including the
>>strongest passwords you can concoct - and then sends it surreptitiously
>>to a remote location.
>
> Not to be picky, but keyloggers aren't deposited by viruses, though they
> are desposited by malware (the general term for malicioius software).
>
> You're absolutely right about keyloggers. Unfortunately, many are now
> being spread via rootkits, which often have a booting component that is
> invisible to the operating system.
.........
And which Operating System are you referring to?
Anyone got the stats of how many non-Windows OSs are ever infected by
root kits etc?
--
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: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:00:50 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Comics Previews iPhone 5
Message-ID: <XJSdnWi7UsYf6BnRnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Be the first on your block to own one!
http://tinyurl.com/28dsrqe
***** Moderator's Note *****
Now I understand why all my cow-orkers got them! Why didn't somebody tell me?
Bill Horne
Moderator
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)
|
| |
or 