Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA13772; Sun, 18 May 1997 08:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 08:19:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705181219.IAA13772@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #124 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 May 97 08:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 124 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Survey Says Almost All Americans Want to Censor the Net (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "Electronic Democracy" by Browning (Rob Slade) Spam! Now I'm -> REALLY <- P*ssed Off! (North Coast Communications) Re: We Have Been Attacked. Reward Offered (Brent Marshall) New Media Group Attack, Update, Clarification (Jim Youll) Re: Working With the Public on the Telephone (Lee Winson) Re: Ohio Suburb Attempts to Ban Multiple Area Codes (Ed Ellers) Re: Ohio Suburb Attempts to Ban Multiple Area Codes (Nevin Liber) Why Not Have a Pizza Delivered by Taxicab (Joey Lindstrom) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* 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 twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 13:11:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Survey Says Almost All Americans Want to Censor the Net Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 21:54:29 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Survey says almost all Americans want to censor the Net [Of course, I'd like to see another question asked: Do you think a Bible Belt prosecutor should be able to threaten you with a prison sentence and a $250,000 fine if you post offensive material on your web site? --Declan] ******************** Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 14:16:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brock N. Meeks" Subject: Survey says "Censor!" RADNOR, Pa., May 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Despite the fact that 29 percent, or nearly one-third, of all Americans access the Internet, 4 of 5 say they are concerned about what can be found, and who might find it, while cruising the Information Superhighway. In a recent nationwide telephone survey of a random sample of Americans ages 18 and older conducted by Chilton Research Services, 80 percent of respondents answered "Yes" when asked, "Do you think that the government should take steps to control access to pornographic or sexually explicit material on the Internet to protect children and teens under 18 years of age?" A significantly higher percentage of women than men favored government intervention. More than 88 percent of women invite censorship or some other action, while 71 percent of men feel such steps are warranted. Respondents were similarly divided by economic and education levels. In all demographic categories a resounding majority wants to limit youngsters' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet, but some groups feel more strongly than others. For instance, among households with incomes below $35,000 annually, 85 percent want Uncle Sam to step in. Among respondents with household incomes above $50,000 the percentage drops to 71 percent. Similarly, 9 in 10 respondents with a high school diploma or less said the government should control access, while 7 in 10 who had at least attended college want such action taken. In addition to worrying what their children might see on the Internet, Americans worry about what others might be able to learn about their private lives. Better than 5 of every 6 respondents (84 percent) said they are concerned about unauthorized or illegal access to personal and financial information through the Internet. A solid majority (65 percent) of all respondents said they were "very concerned," while another 19 percent admitted to being "somewhat concerned." Fewer than 10 percent of respondents were "not at all concerned." Those with less than a high school education and those over 65 years of age expressed less concern, possibly because these groups are not as likely as others to use the Internet. The Chilton EXPRESS telephone omnibus survey was conducted among a sample of 1,000 American men and women ages 18 and older, between April 16 and April 20, 1997. The margin of error is +/- 3 percent. Chilton Research Services, an ABC-owned company, was established in 1957. The company offers full research and consulting services to consumer products companies, business and industry, telecommunications and media, non-profit organizations and government agencies. SOURCE Chilton Research Services CO: Chilton Research Services ST: Pennsylvania IN: PUB CPR MLM SU: 05/13/97 13:57 EDT http://www.prnewswire.com This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:35:51 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Electronic Democracy" by Browning BKELCDEM.RVW 961210 "Electronic Democracy", Graeme Browning, 1996, 0-910965-20-X, U$19.95 %A Graeme Browning brow@clark.net %C 462 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897-2126 %D 1996 %G 0-910965-20-X %I Pemberton Press Books/Online Inc. %O U$19.95 +1-800-248-8466 203-761-1466 fax: +1-203-761-1444 online@well.com %P 200 %T "Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Influence American Politics" Maxwell's "How to Access the Federal Government on the Internet" (cf. BKHAFGOI.RVW) tells what your (US) government can do for you. Casey's "The Hill on the Net" (cf. BKHILNET.RVW) is a kind of personal memoir of exploration of the use of technology among politicians. Browning here provides the basics, background and case studies for grassroots use of the net to affect and influence the political process. The first three chapters contain anecdotal accounts of specific political events that have been influenced by net-based activities. This is readable, interesting, and even informative, but many similar works go no further. Browning proceeds to advise on acceptable tactics on the net, as well as the potential downside to political use of the Internet. There is a brief look at some related technologies, and a set of resources (which the author admits are personally selected and not exhaustive). A realistic, useful, and balanced guide. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKELCDEM.RVW 961210 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 00:40:08 EST From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: Spam! Now I'm -> REALLY <- P*ssed Off! Since December I have been virtually flooded with this stuff. Recently I had to change several internal company mailboxes at MY expense, as they have been filled to capacity, making normal business operations impossible. There are two recent spams though that really take the cake. Both are trying to sell me either mailing lists or software designed to extract addresses from Use(less)net newsgroups. Both spammers extoll the "virtues" of doing business in this way. They discuss other ways of obtaining mailing lists as well, such as subscribing to lists that allow you to get names and e-mail addresses of other subscribers. Wouldn't it be a shame if somebody actually obtained a copy of this wonderfull software, modified it in such a way that it would "backfire" (DEL *.* perhaps?), and re-released it via BBS'S to other wannabe spammers? Not that -> I <- would recommend anything like that. ^ For readers who might be interested in obtaining spamming software I offer the following sources. The one with the "800" number will be of particular interest. PATS usual admonishments about the usefullness of PBX's and payphones apply here. Only serious inquiries please, although several repeat calls may be necessary till you make up your mind. 1.) E-OFFERS.COM extract@e-offers.com Todd or Theresa Farmer 800-541-3010 (Ext. 118) 4401 Fletcher / Suite 200 ^^^ Wayne MI 48184 313-728-5210 (Live Answer!) 2.) PCPAYOLA.COM phoenix@leonardo.net Robert Gantt Phoenix Interactive 213-737-1494 (Live Answer!) P.O. Box 88506 Los Angeles CA 90009 213-737-1497 (Fax) Have phu....er..fun! Michael Fumich (Copies of the actual spam available on request. You have to read it to believe the nerve of these people! Pat, if any attorney contacts you to take this on, a class action suit perhaps, contact me. Lets begin with Spamford!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would love to begin with Spamford. I would love to bang him around very, very hard; at the very least run up his legal bills in defending himself. I think he needs to be totally silenced and put out of business one way or another, within the bounds of legality of course. Ditto for AGIS. If a few attornies would provide their time and services on a pro-bono basis, it would be really great to see Spamford getting sued six ways from Sunday all at the same time in different jurisdictions all over the United States. Wishful thinking on my part though I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brentmar@erols.com (Brent Marshall) Subject: Re: We Have Been Attacked. Reward Offered. Assistance Requested. Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:21:22 GMT On Thu, 15 May 1997 17:59:22 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom was written: > My domain newmediagroup.com is under attack by someone who doesn't > like my MILITANT, PUBLIC ANTI-SPAM stance. To date their actions have > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I too have really had all I can handle > of this and I am soliciting the assistance of any attorney who wishes > to volunteer. Jay Ashworth has pointed out to me in recent correspondence > Will any attorney willing to take this on -- especially one who has a > good rapport with the local US Attorney -- please contact me. I want > to see an actual violation of federal law, with names on it, presented > to a grand jury or a federal judge. Will anyone help? PAT] You may wish to contact the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice? According to the following page on the DOJ WWW server, http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/, there is a Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section in the Criminal Division. A search on that Web server uncovered a reference to a Computer Crime Unit in the General Litigation Section (I assume that this is a predecessor group) and gives a contact number of 202-514-1026. Hope that helps. Regards, Brent Marshall brentmar@erols.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry, I would not count on them to do a thing, at least on the basis of any individual complaints. They are like a lot of other federal agencies supposedly involved in enforcing laws and standards: they go where the money is and to the corporations with a lot of influence. You can bet if AT&T or MCI or Sprint said some two-bit phreak had hacked a password and gotten into some dinky computer of theirs, the feds would stage a massive raid, confiscate anything they found which remotely looked like a computer or a telephone, and demand huge fines, jail terms and the whole bit. But you have to understand one thing: the federal government, and in particular the law enforcement agencies DO NOT like the internet and the ease with which average people are able to speak and express themselves. Large corporations dislike the net also. People having so much ability to speak and communicate their ideas and the news without having to go through authorized channels such as the {New York Times} or the {Chicago Tribune} is starting to bother them a lot. When the police for example were able to go to their mouthpieces at the newspapers and spread a few vicious stories, etc with impunity while you and I had to beg the editor's permission to get a line or two printed in the 'Letters to the Editor' column everything was cool. But now the public is able to say what they want, when they want and to whom they want. This is not good news where the government is concerned. Add to this the fact that the newspapers themselves are not very happy having to deal with this new media -- oh yes, they have web pages and all; they have to be in the loop, like it or not -- and see just how far some complaints to the government will get you. I suspect that even if they do not actively encourage people like Spamford Wallace to pollute the net, there is a sort of benign encour- agement given. If the government and the large corporations can just turn their backs and ignore his antics, he'll manage to completely wreck what little is still left of the newsgroups and mailing lists saving the government the trouble of having to dismantle the whole thing and coming off like the bad guys in the process. Then twenty years from now the government and the corporations can say, "gee, isn't it too bad the way the internet and the newsgroups were made almost useless for the common person, the same way Citizen's Band Radio was wrecked twenty years earlier." I mean, you are talking to someone now -- me! -- who went through this same scene twenty years ago with CB Radio. To me this is like sitting through the same movie a second time; I saw CB Radio start out as an extremely nice medium for the common person; I saw the equivilent of 'newsgroups' on the various CB channels (frequencies); I heard a lot of people exchange a lot of valuable information and news via CB. Then the equivilent of the spammers took over, jamming the frequencies with super high- powered radio signals. I'll bet you think that 'Make Money Fast' started with Usenet newsgroups. I heard those same letters almost word for word read over the radio blasted through two-thousand watt linear amplifiers. And yes, the pedophiles worked the CB chat groups as did the Nazi people, the cultists and everyone else. When the government in the form of the Federal Communications Commission finally got a bellyfull of it, the FCC enforcement agents would show up -- not at the door of the 'spammers' -- but at the premises of some nerdy CB'er with a two watt radio who happened to be slightly out of frequency or a little above the legal power limits. They would kick the door down, go in and start smashing up the radio, arrest the poor guy, etc. Please do not delude yourself about which side the government is on. The government needs the likes of Spamford to do their dirty work for them; i.e. to see this medium get rotted out from the inside out. Haven't you noticed the only real enforcement going on is directed at the group of hackers who it is alleged have 'disrupted' the major spammers? We are always hearing that 'an investigation is under way regards hackers who caused a disruption in service at some-spammer.com ...' but when is the last time you heard of an investigation into the unlawful transmission of unsolicited messages to facsimile machines? Never; nor are you likely to. The Department of Injustice is far too busy maintaining pedophile sting operations and responding to complaints made by AT&T about phreaks to assign anyone to enforce a law about unsolicited stuff sent to fax machines. So, in response, I should ask the government for help? Surely you jest. I suspect a few very high-powered attornies breathing on them might provoke some action, but I think private litigation might be more effective or just as effective. Any attornies out there want to start pushing Spamford around a little? Count me in as a plaintiff! PAT] ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: New Media Group Attack, Update, Clarification Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 20:25:09 -0400 Organization: New Media Group, Inc. Hello. For those of you who follow such things, it's been an interesting couple of days here. I will have an update at the website sometime before Monday morning, but no promises about exactly when. Another bombing run apparently happened overnight, and we received well over a thousand bounces this morning. The receiving system claims they were sent at around 0900 (local time in UK/ 0400 EDT) from ISPAM.NET. Our ISP was quite upset, but understanding, and we have rearranged things to shift more of the load off his systems and onto ours. I continue to seek assistance both in the form of information, and in general support from the Internet community. A major crime was committed and I believe those who perpetrated it must be punished. But I cannot do this alone. We all need to stand together against such terrorist intimidation tactics. And we have to do it now. As a united group. The press have been covering these things VERY poorly. It is time to educate journalists and let them know this isn't just a "pranksters" making merry, as one local writer here described it. A past message of mine has led to some confusion (including my own) about the reward offered. I will clarify that now, and I apologize for posting in the middle of the night after working all day to harden a system against attacks (while simultaneously trying to stop the same attacks). However ... Effective May 16, 1997 at 0:00 EDT I am offering a reward of US$2,500 for information leading directly to the arrest and conviction of the individual or individuals responsible for the inbound mailbomb attack on New Media Group servers, and for the outbound transmission of thousands of fraudulent messages, bearing my name as the sender, which began at approximately 9:20 EDT on May 14, 1997 and continued through at least 0400 EDT on May 17. This reward is for real, the money is out of my pocket, and any payout will be administered by the law firm which is representing me. There may be additional terms and conditions related to the payment of this reward. I will leave it to the attorneys to work out the fine print, and when I have that, I will post it to the website on which I am trying to keep current information: Good day, and thank you for your support. Oh yeah, support. I need all the support I can get right now. This is not a one-guy fight. It's sort of lonely out here. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think I speak for most readers here in wishing you luck in getting this resolved. The time has come for the community to begin taking a very agressive stance on spam. We need to begin demanding that there be enforcement of the laws and at the same time use our own attornies to begin litigation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Working With the Public on the Telephone Date: 18 May 1997 02:02:40 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In books about Grand Central Terminal, NYC, they always include similar types of questions the information booth receives, such as: "I came in on the 8:25, what time does it depart?" "Have you seen my wife?" and so on.... But in fairness to the general public, today's extremely complex fare and schedule structures do not make it easy for both the public and service agents. This applies to airline fares, banking fees, credit cards, health insurance, and just about everything else that has centralized 800 numbers serving a very large group of people. People SHOULD read back quoted fares and double check them with the agent because there are so many combinations. In a recent trip I called back to double check and saved me $100 -- the agent merely keyed in my trip plans slightly differently and the computer came up with a different fare (exact same travel plans.) Look at how many plans there are in telephone long distance service, and how often they change. Being a telephone service agent is a very tough job, and not well paying. The turnover is very high, and as a result, the agents are not really that familiar with their company's policies. All they can do is pull up stuff on the computer -- assuming they pull up the right stuff. I've often had to coach agents to get them to look in the right place. Even banks have fallen to the lure of marketing gimmicks with nonsensical interest rate tables with no logic flow. My own bank offers 3,4,6,7,8,9,11 month CDs at basically the same interest rate, but the 5 and 10 month CDs will be at a much higher rate and different rules. And now that we have super banks covering entire states, the central service centers have to deal with many different variables, because some regional differences still remain as holdovers. A service center telephone agent may formerly have worked for a different bank and not quite familiar with present rules (or absent for the last training class -- the rules change so frequently.) I suspect the marketing people change the rules frequently on purpose, so that what was once a money-saving plan becomes expensive when the rules switch, but consumers don't bother changing their arrangement to keep up. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In fairness to the traveling public, the train which *arrived* at 8:25 is not necessarily going to *depart* at the same time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ohio Suburb Attempts to Ban Multiple Area Codes Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 14:11:09 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Our editor, Pat, wrote in reply: > "And in Chicago, the city has tried for years to enforce a ban on 'for > sale' signs placed in front of houses. Let's face it, they are starting > to get frantic. Everyone with money or the ability to live elsewhere is > leaving town as rapidly as they can. So what do you do when large > numbers of citizens move out and leave fewer and fewer behind? Just ask > the Chicago City Council: you become more oppressive and dictatorial > than ever with those who remain. On three different occassions now, the > Supreme Court has struck down ordinances in Chicago banning 'for sale' > signs as an infringment on the free speech rights of the property > owners. So the city makes slight revisions in the ordinance and starts > over again. They get sued, they drag it out for years, eventually lose > and proceed to write a similar ordinance." Dunno about Chicago, but it's said that some cities have passed these ordinances to combat "blockbusting" -- a disgusting practice where someone in the real estate business arranges for a black family to move into an all-white block, convinces the neighbors that they need to sell out (to the crook) while their house is still worth something, then sells the houses to black families at grossly inflated prices, ripping off both the buyers and the sellers (except, perhaps, for that first black customer). The ban on "for sale" signs is intended to reduce the pressure that a flock of such signs might place on the holdouts. (Of course, in some cases the idea might also be to discourage blacks from moving into the neighborhood in the first place ... but it's hard to tell. No doubt both motives have been involved in different places.) FWIW, the city of Louisville, Kentucky, also passed a "nuclear-free zone" ordinance a while back. Exactly how they are supposed to be able to enforce it is an open question, considering the level of security (under Federal law) that surrounds nuclear weapons work. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The idea here was to prevent blockbusting also but the Supreme Court said they would have to figure out some way of doing it without infringing on the free speech rights of people to put signs in their yard. The city is allowed to regulate to some extent the size and placement of the sign, but not the wording, nor the size and placement to the extent the sign becomes impossible to read at a short distance away. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nevin@cs.arizona.edu (Nevin ":-]" Liber) Subject: Re: Ohio Suburb Attempts to Ban Multiple Area Codes Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 07:41:06 -0700 Organization: University of Arizona CS Department, Tucson Arizona In article , aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) wrote: > Doesn't anyone know what is causing this mess of new area codes > (AC's)? It's very simple, it is the proliferation of the multiple > telephone numbers that started when the FCC opened the US market for > Cellular phone service back in the early 80's. It isn't just cell phones. There are the huge numbers of devices that cheap CPUs made possible, such as fax machines, modem lines, credit card point-of-sale machines, pagers, ATM machines, etc. Also, it is not uncommon for a person to have three or four unique phone numbers just to be able to get a hold of them (home, work, cell, pager). > Instead of following > the prevailing European cellular model at the time that assigned a > whole bunch of (what amounted to be) new AC's to this specialized > wireless service, the FCC told the US cellular A/B providers and > (re-)sellers to go to the telcos in their local service areas and > obtain exchanges (NXX's) for their own specialized use. That solves the problems of cell phones and pagers. But what do you do about the other devices, where having them easily identified by an area code would be a bad thing due to all the spammers and crackers out there? Nevin ":-)" Liber (520) 293-2799 ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 17 May 97 14:04:02 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Why Not Have a Pizza Delivered by Taxicab On Mon, 12 May 1997 04:35:03 -0400 (EDT), someone@telecom-digest.org wrote: > Reminds of the story I heard, likely in this newsgroup, about the > woman whose phone number she'd had for many years was similar to a > brand new large hotel. She'd get many mis-dialed calls for the hotel. > She tried talking to someone at the hotel but get a rude reception. > She then started confirming all the room reservations she got. Then > the front desk had to deal with all the angry customers who had no > reservations. They got a very bad reputation. Similar story here: Years ago, while working at a local taxi dispatch office, we discovered that our number was very similar to a local pizza delivery place. Usually on Friday and Saturday nights, we'd get drunks phoning up asking for a large pepperoni and mushroom, extra cheese. The funny part was that no matter what you said to these people, all you'd get out of them would be "how long for my pizza?" Finally, we just started accepting the pizza order. "You want anchovies with that?" The best part was that the pizza place had a "39 minutes or it's free" delivery policy. Sure enough, these boneheads would phone back 40 minutes later ... "HAH! You idiots didn't get my pizza here in 39 minutes so it's free!" and we'd say "Absolutely sir! Tell the driver when he gets there that the pizza is free of charge". And these idiots never wondered why we never asked for their address. :-) Epilogue: some years later, I met up with a fella who, during the time in question, worked answering phones at the pizza place. And sure enough, on Friday and Saturday nights, they'd get people phoning 'em for taxis. And after fighting with them long enough, they too started taking the taxi orders! :-) It's amazing how people can place a phone call, and then complete that call, without actually LISTENING to a single word the other party says. How you could possibly confuse "Good evening, Checker Cabs" with "Good evening, Mother's Pizza" is beyond me ... From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 (403) 620-4708 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@netway.ab.ca lindstrj@cadvision.com WEB: http://www.netway.ab.ca/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #124 ******************************