If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Tim Slattery wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. Murder is allowed in Florida, under the rubric of "Stand your ground." Look at Trayvon Martin. The whole thing is a crock of ****. The law is also phrased as "no duty to retreat". So you're proselytizing that we should all be cowards and do nothing when attacked or trespassed and hope the law takes care of the aggressor ... and AFTERWARD. Obviously you've never been the target of an assault and never had to protect others. |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 04:04:18 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:57:26 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Note that while some are ISPs provide voice service, they are not a VOIP service. If it's not POTS, it's a form of VoIP, and in the case of cable providers, it's not going to be POTS, so it's a form of VoIP. They operate as a telco. True, but all that means is that they tend to hand off the digitized VoIP traffic to the local telco exchange. If the destination is also within that exchange, then it's routed directly to its destination, converted back to analog within the exchange if the receiving customer is on POTS or forwarded as VoIP packets if the receiving customer has an eMTA or ATA. In that case, it'll be converted back to analog at the customer's premises. However, if the destination is not within that exchange, the packets will go out over the Internet to the exchange nearest the destination. Once they arrive there, they're treated the same as above, converted back to analog either at the exchange or at the customer's premises, depending on the type of service that the customer has. In the case of an ISP with a large-ish footprint, if the calling party and the receiving party aren't local to each other but both are customers of the same ISP, it's possible that the VoIP traffic will not be handed off to the local telco exchange but rather kept in-house, but even then it would travel over the Internet, even though it might stay within links controlled by that ISP. Your voice traffic is NOT traversing the Internet. It is unless the destination is also serviced by the exchange that the ISP handed off to. How else would it get delivered? For example, Comcast Voice is not a VOIP service. Actually, it is. They use an eMTA (ATA) to digitize the analog signals, then stuff the results into IP packets and send them on their way. It's literally Voice over IP. You are using an eMTA with Comcast Voice, not a VOIP adapter. The eMTA (embedded Multimedia Terminal Adapter) is an embedded ATA (analog telephone adapter) incorported into the cable modem. I'm not getting the distinction you're trying to make between a VoIP adapter (ATA) versus an eMTA (which I agree has an embedded ATA). Both are an ATA. One is a standalone device while the other is incorporated into a cable modem. They do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. magicJack is definitely VOIP. Agreed. I do sometimes, however, tend to lump the ISP voice providers operating as telcos along with VOIP providers but I know I'm being inaccurate. Visually both are using the cable modem but the user may be unaware that a voice-capable cable modem has an eMTA. There are minor differences, but essentially all are forms of VoIP. VOIP The acronym is VoIP rather than VOIP. is Voice Over Internet Protocol I'm nitpicking, but it's actually Voice over IP. The 'o' is always lower case. which means VOIP traverses the Internet No, VoIP just means that the analog voice signals are digitized and packetized, then carried over an IP protocol to their destination where they will be converted back to analog. SIP is one such IP protocol, but there are others. (For example, Sprint uses SIP. I helped to design that portion of their data network way back in the day.) VoIP calls may or may not traverse the Internet. In most cases, they do. Local (intra-exchange) calls don't because they don't need to, but almost everything else uses the Internet for transport. What many people may be surprised to know is that virtually all non-intra-exchange calls are now VoIP, and have been for well over 10 years. Sprint Long Distance, for example, completely converted to VoIP somewhere around 2003 or 2004, (and the other telcos did likewise around the same time). The exact timing is fuzzy since it's been so long, but they use SprintLink, aka the Sprint backbone, aka the Internet, to transport the digitized voice packets to wherever they need to go. At some point, the packets are converted back to analog, either at the exchange that's local to the destination in the case of POTS or at the eMTA/ATA that's part of the customer's CPE equipment. (Yes, that's completely redundant but I'm too lazy to fix it.) hence why quality suffers due to routing through various hosts, and VoIP has no real inherent voice quality issues. Did anyone notice when switched analog circuits gave way to digitized voice packets? I'd say no, not really. There were a few hiccups in the early years here and there, but I'm not aware of any significant issues within the last 8-10 years or so. The technology is pretty fully baked by now. QoS is implemented at each of the bottlenecks, for example. (I helped set that up, as well.) connecting to landlines using VOIP requires the VOIP provider have gear at the telco exchanges to convert from VOIP to regular telephony (and why it took years for magicJack to work everywhere in the USA while they were implanting their converters at the telcos). VoIP providers don't need to have gear there. They just need to have an agreement in place, and that's often harder than it might seem. Every exchange is already connected to the Internet, so no additional gear is needed. By your definition, all telcos (PSTNs) are VOIP providers even if the user's connection is via twisted pair (POTS) because, gee, the telcos then digitize the voice traffic. Let's see, how nitpicky should we be? Local exchanges, ILECs and CLECs, or what you call PSTN telcos, may or may not be involved in VoIP. In most cases that I'm aware of, they hand off to LD carriers for the VoIP backhaul, but there could be exceptions that I'm not aware of, so I think you're mischaracterizing my definition. ISPs, like Comcast, digitize the voice traffic and may pass it to a telco exchange or across their their own OCA6 trunks or across the Internet. You just described a VoIP provider. BTW, I'm not familiar with OCA6 trunks, but you've got the general idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optica...smission_rates Might be analog equipment at the user end but its all digital, even at the telcos. Let's say that another way. If a call originates and terminates within the same LEC and both customers are on PSTN, then no VoIP is involved. There'd simply be no need for it. If one or more of those two local customers uses VoIP, the LEC will 'translate' accordingly. If two different LECs are involved, however, you can bet that VoIP is involved, at least for the backhaul, even if neither customer uses VoIP. All telephony is VOIP according to your definition. No, not all. I think it's safe to say all LD and all local that involves two LECs, plus all local that involves a single LEC where at least one of the customers uses VoIP. Taken together, that's almost everything, but not quite. The technical distinction is becoming muddied; however, most users still use VOIP to mean Internet-only based connections and landlines to mean the old telephony technology despite the two are getting mixed. It's VoIP, not VOIP, and I can't speak for what "most users" may or may not think. I don't think most users care in the least. From your end at the voice-capable cable modem to Comcast, it is not VOIP. Technically, it's VoIP. Comcast calls it Digital Voice, but that's their marketing name for their VoIP service. I think you know that. With magicJack, it was VOIP at the user's end. The same can be said for anyone using an ATA or eMTA, including Comcast Digital Voice subscribers. The user must have Internet service so the magicJack dongle can not only digitize the voice traffic but encapsulate it into IP traffic. Right, just like any other ATA or eMTA. And, no, the telcos did NOT have VOIP to landline converters and they were not inspired by altruistic aims to provide free landline services to callers who weren't even their customers. You missed my point. The LECs installed VoIP equipment so they could interface with their LD carrier partners. You're right that the LECs weren't eager to work with the budget VoIP providers, but to do so didn't mean more equipment had to be installed. The equipment was already there; the only thing missing was the contract that enabled the business relationship. There were even reports at the time that some of the VoIP providers tried to insist that their interface costs should be zero. That didn't fly, but the negotiations seriously held up some of the contracts. VOIP is data packet switching. :-) -- Char Jackson |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:03:14 -0400, Paul wrote:
I think I will be getting the "No Trust" calls. That's the kind of call I really want. Did you know you can never have enough duct cleaning ? I don't get the duct cleaning calls. Mine used to be from "Rachel at card services" but lately they're from some robo lady who says "We've been trying to reach you regarding your vehicle's warranty." On the rare occasions where I answer and stick around for the human to come online, they always want to sell me an extended warranty for a vehicle I got rid of nearly 4 years ago. -- Char Jackson |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:27:45 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Tim Slattery wrote: Char Jackson wrote: The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. Murder is allowed in Florida, under the rubric of "Stand your ground." Look at Trayvon Martin. The whole thing is a crock of ****. The law is also phrased as "no duty to retreat". So you're proselytizing that we should all be cowards and do nothing when attacked or trespassed and hope the law takes care of the aggressor ... and AFTERWARD. Obviously you've never been the target of an assault and never had to protect others. You're presenting a false choice. It doesn't have to be a decision between running away or shooting to kill. There's a ton of middle ground available. -- Char Jackson |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:54:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:30:46 -0700, "David E. Ross" wrote: On 7/25/2018 5:59 PM, Char Jackson wrote: Aside: telco.s? Is it something on my end that's replacing the usual apostrophe with a period? It is not only you. I too see a period instead of an apostrophe. Thanks. Maybe it's a new thing that I'm slow to catch on to. :-) I'm sure John (J.P.) will clue me in. It may have been in my original post. I wouldn't write "telco's", as that looks like a greengrocer's apostrophe. I suppose I could write tel.co.s or tel'co's but those look very odd. No problem, I was just curious. I'd probably just use telcos. Thanks and apologies for the interruption. -- Char Jackson |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:27:45 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Tim Slattery wrote: Char Jackson wrote: The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. Murder is allowed in Florida, under the rubric of "Stand your ground." Look at Trayvon Martin. The whole thing is a crock of ****. The law is also phrased as "no duty to retreat". So you're proselytizing that we should all be cowards and do nothing when attacked or trespassed and hope the law takes care of the aggressor ... and AFTERWARD. Obviously you've never been the target of an assault and never had to protect others. You're presenting a false choice. It doesn't have to be a decision between running away or shooting to kill. There's a ton of middle ground available. Yes, there are choices - but most are cogitated after the event, like what we could've or should've done. The flee or fight response is still present in humans. In an instant, you don't have the luxury of time to select from a myriad of choices. Could be Drekja thought there would be further attacks. Was he supposed to crawl on the ground to get away? If he rose to his feet, that could present another opportunity for McGlockton to attack. Most folks don't know how to fight when prone, like sweeping out the feet or rolling into the attack as a counterattack to get closer to hit the attacker. Hindsight is the only perfect science. We observers can make judgments from our comfy chairs about what Drekja should've done. The law recognizes the limitations in analysis DURING a crisis (but that doesn't stop Drekja from being arrested, charged, and then acquited by a judge rather than the police making those decisions). I suspect there was some political pressure from the DA; that is, the police were likely told not to arrest, especially since they already chose not to arrest at the time of the incident or shortly thereafter. I'm not sure the police should really be making the decision not to arrest based on "stand your ground" aka "no duty to retreat" law. While they make the initial decision to arrest or not, seems like something that should've been decided in court. Quite often, and depending on the locality, the police are granted wide latitude in interpreting the law. I'm sure once the police decided not to arrest that the police chief or commissioner or even the DA told them not to pursue a subsequent arrest. From what I've read, so far, the police could not arrest and charge Drekja. Their hands were tied by the law. They're not allowed to shoot at the tires or driver of a fleeing suspect in a high-speed chase, either, and they're supposed to capture alive, if possible, someone that is shooting at them or coming at them with a knife. Besides, it is not whether or not the police did the right thing. Seems they complied to the law. That's there job. It's not to make up the law at the time of an incident. It can be quite frustrating to them when they know something is wrong but can't do anything about it. Some guy is shooting at them and they're told to take them alive. Geez, not only is the public and news against them but even their own regulations. If the residents want the "stand your ground" law neutered or discarded then it's up to them to pressure their representatives. To me, it's not so much whether the law exists in Florida or not. It's more about why those citizens decided to allow the enactment of that law. Was it something they want but now, gee, a black guy is another example of racist banner waving. Seems "stand your ground" is an extension to the "castle doctrine" where you are allowed use of lethal force to protect yourself in your home, business, or even within your car where the occupants that have legal right to reside on/in that property have no legal compulsion to retreat (since they are already in their home, workplace, or car which would be to where they would retreat). The castle doctrine says the assailed can use lethal force against intruder without retreating. Seems the "stand your ground" or "no duty to retreat" law extends that, so the assailed are not required to retreat when attacked -- which does NOT guarantee a reduction in an attack. Instead of protecting yourself, friends, family, or others within your property (home, business, car), you are allowed to protect yourself while in a public place. The basic criticism is that the average Joe might interpret the law as "shoot first, ask questions later". If Drekja was wearing a double holster weilding a couple of semi-autos at his side, do you think McGlockton would've attacked? While the police are trained and educated, it's overreaching and ridiculous to expect the average citizen to make the best decision in a crisis. I have to wonder why Drekja was carrying a handgun in the first place. Was he provoking the confrontation, so he could shoot someone, anyone? Drekja's history hasn't been revealed, or McGlockton's. As the police have said, they complied with the law and "stand your ground" doesn't seem to take into consideration the history of the combatants. Why did Floridians grant passage of the law if they don't agree with it? Was the law enacted based on public pressure to permit better protection of self while in public where castle doctrine doesn't apply? If they don't like the law, why weren't Floridians lobbying and pressuring to amend or annul the law before this incident? There were be more incidents and the police can't arrest. Whether they like the law or not, the police are stuck enforcing it. What pressures were brought to bear to enact the law in the first place? The sad part is that if McGlockton were a white neo-Nazi dude with a shaved head and tattooed all over instead of a black militant and if Drekja were a black woman carrying a child, this incident probably wouldn't have made the news, or everyone commenting here would've thought "Yeah, she should've unloaded the entire clip into him." Justifiable Use of Force http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html Don't expect the average Joe to know the law. Drekja would've shot McGlockton whether 776.012, section 2 existed or not. He got lucky in the law kept him from arrest and prosecution. How do you compose a law that mandates the attacked have reasonable composure during the incident to make calm and rational decisions regarding long-term consequences to validate their belief regarding their personal safety? The bitching by Drekja at Jacobs was probably several minutes long, but McGlockton's attack was immediate and without warning. Did McGlockton overreact? Yes, very definitely. Did Drekja overreact? Yes, but whether you like it or not he was protected by the law which tied the police's hands. It's now up to the Floridians to decide whether then let stand or get amended the law. The law is never absolute. It cannot cover every situation, so it changes to compensate for a deficiency. Personally, it seems a judge should've made the decision regarding Drekja's overreaction; however, as the police have stated, they have to comply with the law, so a judge would never see Drekja in court. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:19:22 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:27:45 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Tim Slattery wrote: Char Jackson wrote: The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. Murder is allowed in Florida, under the rubric of "Stand your ground." Look at Trayvon Martin. The whole thing is a crock of ****. The law is also phrased as "no duty to retreat". So you're proselytizing that we should all be cowards and do nothing when attacked or trespassed and hope the law takes care of the aggressor ... and AFTERWARD. Obviously you've never been the target of an assault and never had to protect others. You're presenting a false choice. It doesn't have to be a decision between running away or shooting to kill. There's a ton of middle ground available. Yes, there are choices - but most are cogitated after the event, like what we could've or should've done. The flee or fight response is still present in humans. In an instant, you don't have the luxury of time to select from a myriad of choices. That probably applies to a small number of people, but most of us have grown up in civilized society, where we learned at a very young age that a transgression, any transgression no matter how slight, doesn't automatically require the death of the transgressor. Your sibling bothers you, you don't kill him/her. A kid at school bothers you, you don't kill him/her. There are lesser alternatives and we learn them at a very early age. We all make choices, even in the heat of the moment. There have always been a few antisocials who'd respond with lethal force, but these Stand Your Ground laws legalize it. It's obviously a move in the wrong direction and will someday be looked at with shame, but for now it's the law in those states. It's a complete shame, but there it is. -- Char Jackson |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On 07/26/2018 04:03 PM, Paul wrote:
[snip] And there is a 2017 proposal working its way through the CRTC in Canada, to block the "easiest" ones (like, calling yourself might be blocked). Here, you used to be able to call yourself. There was a special number, originally used for making local calls on a party line. I have used it a couple of times as a quick way to check my phone. IIRC, dial a 4-digit code and your own number (all 10 digits, it was supposed to be someone else on that line) and hang up. The phone will ring. That went away when we changed to an electronic exchange. [snip] |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:19:22 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Char Jackson wrote: On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:27:45 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Tim Slattery wrote: Char Jackson wrote: The whole thing was caught on video. To me, it looks like cold blooded murder, but apparently they see it differently in that part of Florida. Murder is allowed in Florida, under the rubric of "Stand your ground." Look at Trayvon Martin. The whole thing is a crock of ****. The law is also phrased as "no duty to retreat". So you're proselytizing that we should all be cowards and do nothing when attacked or trespassed and hope the law takes care of the aggressor ... and AFTERWARD. Obviously you've never been the target of an assault and never had to protect others. You're presenting a false choice. It doesn't have to be a decision between running away or shooting to kill. There's a ton of middle ground available. Yes, there are choices - but most are cogitated after the event, like what we could've or should've done. The flee or fight response is still present in humans. In an instant, you don't have the luxury of time to select from a myriad of choices. That probably applies to a small number of people, but most of us have grown up in civilized society, where we learned at a very young age that a transgression, any transgression no matter how slight, doesn't automatically require the death of the transgressor. Your sibling bothers you, you don't kill him/her. A kid at school bothers you, you don't kill him/her. There are lesser alternatives and we learn them at a very early age. We all make choices, even in the heat of the moment. There have always been a few antisocials who'd respond with lethal force, but these Stand Your Ground laws legalize it. It's obviously a move in the wrong direction and will someday be looked at with shame, but for now it's the law in those states. It's a complete shame, but there it is. When people become incensed, you can forget about what they were taught in Sunday school. I don't live in Clearwater to know what it is like living there regarding racism; however, the percentage of blacks is pretty small (https://statisticalatlas.com/neighbo...-and-Ethnicity) which could mean (but doesn't mandate) that whites think they can get away with more privileges regarding the law. Not all cities are as serene as yours. More than being taught about being nice and not transgressing against another which all sounds nice, we are more of a product of our environment - and I (and probably you) don't know what it means to live there. I've only driven through Tampa (Clearwater is nearby) and my impression was that I wouldn't care to live there, but I would care a lot less to live in NYC. Clearwater's population is dense: 4,308 per square mile - more than 13 times higher than the Florida average and 47 times than the national average (NYC is 27K persons per square mile - YUCK - and much higher is some of it burroughs). Yet Clearwater has a low percentage of blacks in its population: 83% of Clearwater is white and 10% are black. Over 12% of its population live below the federal poverty income level. Clearwater is next to Tampa. Tampa is home to the KKK and offshoots (Knights of White Disciples), Nation of Islam (black nationalists), Black Panthers, and other hate groups (SPCL has a map of hate groups). I don't what it is like living there as either a white or black person and I'm not interested in further research. The police did their job: uphold the law. Now it's up to Floridians to decide if they want to amend that law. More info about Drekja indicates he is considered a bit of a nut by the locals. He has lambasted other drivers before at that same convenience store about them parking in the handicap spots. He's a crusader on that topic. However, I've seen lots of nuts that are yelling out some prophecy, religion, doomsday, or other ravings when I've gone through my city's downtown but I don't blindside to assault them to shut them up. While the police's hands were tied due to the law which they are to enforce whether they like it or not, seems Drekja's crusading history might be cause for them to take him in for pysch evaluation, and perhaps an opportunity to reinforce your thoughts about a civilized society. I'm still curious if Drekja has a carry permit for the handgun or if the police even checked. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
Oh, and the case isn't over yet despite the news harping on the incident
and not with a followup. Drekja may not be off the hook. Sheriff Gualtieri is sending the case to the Florida state attorney's office for review to consider what actions, if any, might be taken against Drekja. It is now up to the DA's office to apply the law to the facts and determine if something should get charged against Drekja. Apparently they don't consider Drekja a flight risk since they didn't arrest him. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:19:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
A couple days ago I subscribed to NoMoRobo on my Spectrum Phone landline website. Since then I've gotten 2 crap calls that NoMoRobo didn't block. But that's not the worst, I enthusiatically put my little TracFone number on the NoMoRobo site also. Alas they needed me to d/l an App onto my TracFone. Here's my problem with that: it's a $15 phone. No data plan. I pay about $7/month for my 'plan' to retain my minutes. My phone doesn't do 'Apps'. So I took its number back off NoMoRobo. Only thing is, somebody is apparently grabbing numbers off that site. I used to get maybe 2 crap calls a day on my TracFone. [and at the end of the month 15 urgent messages from TracFone to try and make me buy more minutes] Today I got about 10 crap calls so far. Only thing I can think of is to try and get TracFone to change my number now. A daunting task. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
John B. Smith wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:19:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: A couple days ago I subscribed to NoMoRobo on my Spectrum Phone landline website. Since then I've gotten 2 crap calls that NoMoRobo didn't block. But that's not the worst, I enthusiatically put my little TracFone number on the NoMoRobo site also. Alas they needed me to d/l an App onto my TracFone. Here's my problem with that: it's a $15 phone. No data plan. I pay about $7/month for my 'plan' to retain my minutes. My phone doesn't do 'Apps'. So I took its number back off NoMoRobo. Only thing is, somebody is apparently grabbing numbers off that site. I used to get maybe 2 crap calls a day on my TracFone. [and at the end of the month 15 urgent messages from TracFone to try and make me buy more minutes] Today I got about 10 crap calls so far. Only thing I can think of is to try and get TracFone to change my number now. A daunting task. I wasn't aware that NoMoRobo's app was free. The app might download and install for free but they charge a subscription fee to work with cell phones using their app. They don't charge for the app but they do charge monthly for the app to access their blacklist. You don't need their app if your cell provider has simultaneous ring. Don't use software if the hardware can do the job. If your cellular provider has simultaneous ring, you don't need any software. You need to enable (if not already) their simultaneous ring feature (sometimes incorrectly named call forwarding) and then add NoMoRobo's number as one of those it calls. With simultaneous ring enabled, at a minimum your own cell phone number should be listed since you want that phone to ring as before. You can then add other numbers to ring at the same time whether that be your home phone, work phone, or NoMoRobo. My cell phone's service is through Tracfone which subleases network services from other carriers. I've had them with Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon (which is the current carrier to which Tracfone subscribes me). I don't remember if it was through some voicemail prompting (you call your own number from your registered phone with that same phone number and go through some prompts on configuring your account) or it might've been done via texting special codes to them. Once I got simultaneous ring enabled in my Verizon account and added NoMoRobo's number, I was done. No software got installed on my phone. Only if your cellular provider does not support simultaneous ring (or it costs extra when bundled in some higher-priced service tier) do you need NoMoRobo's Android or iOS app; however, that route isn't free (cost is $1.99 per month per device). Rather than was two bucks a month, see if your cellular provider has simultaneous ring as a feature of your existing plan with them. As I recall, you don't need any data plan (aka Internet access). If you configure your cellular account to simultaneously ring NoMoRobo, that's done when you receving inbound calls. NoMoRobo is doing the lookup of the caller's phone number on their server when your cellular provider includes calling them. The lookup is not performed by an app on your phone. I doubt and cannot figure out how anyone could be harvesting phone number from NoMoRobo. The spammers are calling your cell phone number. They aren't calling NoMoRobo. Just like e-mail spam, the volume of spam calls ebbs and peaks. There isn't a constant level of robodialing. More likely your phone number already got harvested and later, which happened to be after using NoMoRobo, you got nailed in the spammer call list for his latest burst of spewage. Some calls will inherently be sporadic, like when getting calls from charities operating a donation drive which occur at specific times, not continually. Even Tracfone will occasionally issue phone calls to you, like to remind you that your subscription is about to expire (which means you lose all your rollover minutes if you let the subscription lapse but they have a 30-day grace period). NoMoRobo ONLY handles robodialed calls. It does not eliminate spam or scam calls made by humans. Only calls that have been detected as originated by a robodialer are in NoMoRobo's blacklist, nothing else. It obviously cannot detect robodialers whose numbers are not yet on its blacklist. Just like your e-mail address, you need to protect your phone number. Anyone to whom you dole out your phone number could pass it on. Any number you call where that end uses ANI (Automatic Number Identification) can record your phone number, like any 800, 888, or 900 number you call or you call anyone using ANI to log your phone number when you call them. Credit bureaus give out your phone number and spilling other personal information just for the asking. I use simultaneous ring at the phone/cell providers. No software. So, I don't have experience with using NoMoRobo's Android or iOS app (which requires a $2/mo subscription). Alas, many "free" apps are adware platforms. You sure you got more phone calls from spammers or instead might you have gotten hit with an add (that might pretend it was a call)? Some adware apps just use a banner to show their ads. This is probably least intrusive but it isn't completely safe. I've seen ads that tried to pretend (within the banner section) that my Back, Home, and Recent buttons had suddenly moved into the screen (instead of the real and dedicated buttons at the bottom of the phone). Some phones no longer have buttons. They have touch points on the screen, and the fake ads are trying to get you to tap on the wrong buttons. Some adware apps present fullscreen ads. This interferes with your use of the app since you have to somehow get out of the ad to get back to the app. For those, usually pressing the Back button gets me back to the app. I would never use the "X", "Close", or other pseudo-button presented in the fullscreen ad since you really don't what script lies behind that element. Some adware apps will present fullscreen ads when you are no longer using the app. You think you exited the app but Android doesn't work like Linux or Windows: exiting an Android app leaves it running in memory in the background until the OS needs to reuse that memory for a newly loaded app. So apps often remain running in the background, and I've encountered some that would puke out fullscreen apps that interfere with the use of my phone until you get rid of the fullscreen ad (e.g., ES File Explorer did that when I tried that file manager app). I don't know if NoMoRobo's app qualifies as an adware app, especially since you have to subscribe at $2/mo to use their app (if they're charging for a subscription, they shouldn't be presenting ads as they are already generating a revenue stream). If your phone was more robust and could handle apps, there are some that do client-initiated filtering but I'm sure they do require a data plan. I don't like how TrueCaller works (they harvest your contacts list). Whitepages Caller ID got renamed to Hiya and I used that before engaging NoMoRobo. While NoMoRobo ONLY addresses robodialing callers, Hiya is more like an e-mail anti-spam filter: Hiya has their blacklist of spam and scam callers. As I recall, it can't do anything until after the first ring. The Caller ID is sent between the first and second rings. So, you will get bothered with one ring from a spammer (just as when using NoMoRobo) but if the call survives to the second ring then it's safer to pick it up. No blacklist is going to be perfect and spammers are constantly altering their intrusion schemes. Did you see my scheme of disabling ringtones on your cell phone (set to silent for all calls) and enabling a ringtone on each contact or on a group of contacts (if your phone supports groups of contacts)? That way, the only time your phone will ring is when a contact calls you. All other callers with either hangup (typical of spammers) or have to leave a voicemail message (if they don't leave a message then their call was not important). Since you have a very low-end (barely smart) phone, you would have to see what control you have over ringtones either globally (for all calls) or if you can assign ringtones to specific contacts or groups of contacts. You don't need NoMoRobo with this scheme, or blacklists at your provider (that you have to update), or a smartphone app (e.g., Hiya). You just need to silence your phone for all calls and then use ringtones ONLY for your contacts. Obviously you do need a voicemail feature with this setup, so good callers can leave you a message who aren't in your contacts list. I don't see a $7/month Tracfone plan. The smallest smartphone plan I can find at Tracfone's web site is $15/month (200 call minutes, 500 texts, and 500 MB for data). I cannot find a Tracfone smartphone plan with no data quota. Their basic plans roll calls, texts, and data all together into a minute quota for varying number of service days. The smallest basic phone plan that I found is $9.99/month for just 30 minutes (talk, text, & web). |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: John B. Smith wrote: On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:19:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: [] didn't block. But that's not the worst, I enthusiatically put my little TracFone number on the NoMoRobo site also. Alas they needed me to d/l an App onto my TracFone. Here's my problem with that: it's a $15 phone. No data plan. I pay about $7/month for my 'plan' to retain my minutes. My phone doesn't do 'Apps'. So I took its number back off (I was going to say download it at home, but [a] your 'phone probably doesn't have wifi [b] it doesn't do apps anyway.) NoMoRobo. Only thing is, somebody is apparently grabbing numbers off that site. I used to get maybe 2 crap calls a day on my TracFone. [and at the end of the month 15 urgent messages from TracFone to try and [] I doubt and cannot figure out how anyone could be harvesting phone number from NoMoRobo. The spammers are calling your cell phone number. They aren't calling NoMoRobo. Just like e-mail spam, the volume of spam calls ebbs and peaks. There isn't a constant level of robodialing. No, he can't prove it; as you say, levels vary. But him now getting about 10 instead of 2 a day, after he put his little 'phone's number on their site, seems rather a coincidence. (I don't think he was suggesting someone's figured out a clever way to harvest numbers by calling, more just that their site/server [where he added his number] has been hacked, or someone involved with it is selling, which I suppose is the same thing.) More likely your phone number already got harvested and later, which Always could be the case. [] would never use the "X", "Close", or other pseudo-button presented in the fullscreen ad since you really don't what script lies behind that element. Some adware apps will present fullscreen ads when you are no Same on webpages in a browser on a normal PC: I'm often very wary of popups - especially "are you sure you want to leave this page" ones - and don't trust their X. I use the back button. (And if possible avoid ever again going to the site where the popup appeared.) longer using the app. You think you exited the app but Android doesn't work like Linux or Windows: exiting an Android app leaves it running in memory in the background until the OS needs to reuse that memory for a That's interesting! Thanks for the information. (Does it apply to iOS too?) _Is_ there a way to exit such an app. terminally? newly loaded app. So apps often remain running in the background, and If OS demand/control really does work like that, maybe there's an opening for an app that just eats memory! [I know, plenty do anyway, but YKWIM (-:] [] If your phone was more robust and could handle apps, there are some that do client-initiated filtering but I'm sure they do require a data plan. I know what you meant, but I don't think "robust" was the right word: a 'phone that doesn't do app.s seems to me very robust (-:! [] I don't see a $7/month Tracfone plan. The smallest smartphone plan I can find at Tracfone's web site is $15/month (200 call minutes, 500 texts, and 500 MB for data). I cannot find a Tracfone smartphone plan with no data quota. Their basic plans roll calls, texts, and data all together into a minute quota for varying number of service days. The smallest basic phone plan that I found is $9.99/month for just 30 minutes (talk, text, & web). I wouldn't be surprised if more or less every customer sees a different set of options; many companies do this now, I presume maybe be use of cookies, browser profiling, or whatever else they can get away with (or in some cases whatever they think they won't get caught using). It's always worth using your browser's cloak facility ("private browsing" in my old Firefox; I don't know what it's called in other browsers) to see what a new customer would see. I recently checked for Ancestry; a new customer taking out a "World" subscription would have seen it available as 89.99 pounds for the year; if I'd let mine auto-renew, it'd have been 179.99 - exactly twice, give or take a penny. Most insurances here do it too, though I've never seen a _doubling_. Never let anything auto-renew! But I'm not surprised you're seeing different options to what JBS is seeing. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Quantity is no substitute for quality, but it's the only one we've got. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 01:42:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
John B. Smith wrote: On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:19:36 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: A couple days ago I subscribed to NoMoRobo on my Spectrum Phone landline website. Since then I've gotten 2 crap calls that NoMoRobo didn't block. But that's not the worst, I enthusiatically put my little TracFone number on the NoMoRobo site also. Alas they needed me to d/l an App onto my TracFone. Here's my problem with that: it's a $15 phone. No data plan. I pay about $7/month for my 'plan' to retain my minutes. My phone doesn't do 'Apps'. So I took its number back off NoMoRobo. Only thing is, somebody is apparently grabbing numbers off that site. I used to get maybe 2 crap calls a day on my TracFone. [and at the end of the month 15 urgent messages from TracFone to try and make me buy more minutes] Today I got about 10 crap calls so far. Only thing I can think of is to try and get TracFone to change my number now. A daunting task. I wasn't aware that NoMoRobo's app was free. The app might download and install for free but they charge a subscription fee to work with cell phones using their app. They don't charge for the app but they do charge monthly for the app to access their blacklist. You don't need their app if your cell provider has simultaneous ring. Don't use software if the hardware can do the job. If your cellular provider has simultaneous ring, you don't need any software. You need to enable (if not already) their simultaneous ring feature (sometimes incorrectly named call forwarding) and then add NoMoRobo's number as one of those it calls. With simultaneous ring enabled, at a minimum your own cell phone number should be listed since you want that phone to ring as before. You can then add other numbers to ring at the same time whether that be your home phone, work phone, or NoMoRobo. My cell phone's service is through Tracfone which subleases network services from other carriers. I've had them with Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon (which is the current carrier to which Tracfone subscribes me). I don't remember if it was through some voicemail prompting (you call your own number from your registered phone with that same phone number and go through some prompts on configuring your account) or it might've been done via texting special codes to them. Once I got simultaneous ring enabled in my Verizon account and added NoMoRobo's number, I was done. No software got installed on my phone. Only if your cellular provider does not support simultaneous ring (or it costs extra when bundled in some higher-priced service tier) do you need NoMoRobo's Android or iOS app; however, that route isn't free (cost is $1.99 per month per device). Rather than was two bucks a month, see if your cellular provider has simultaneous ring as a feature of your existing plan with them. As I recall, you don't need any data plan (aka Internet access). If you configure your cellular account to simultaneously ring NoMoRobo, that's done when you receving inbound calls. NoMoRobo is doing the lookup of the caller's phone number on their server when your cellular provider includes calling them. The lookup is not performed by an app on your phone. I doubt and cannot figure out how anyone could be harvesting phone number from NoMoRobo. The spammers are calling your cell phone number. They aren't calling NoMoRobo. Just like e-mail spam, the volume of spam calls ebbs and peaks. There isn't a constant level of robodialing. More likely your phone number already got harvested and later, which happened to be after using NoMoRobo, you got nailed in the spammer call list for his latest burst of spewage. Some calls will inherently be sporadic, like when getting calls from charities operating a donation drive which occur at specific times, not continually. Even Tracfone will occasionally issue phone calls to you, like to remind you that your subscription is about to expire (which means you lose all your rollover minutes if you let the subscription lapse but they have a 30-day grace period). NoMoRobo ONLY handles robodialed calls. It does not eliminate spam or scam calls made by humans. Only calls that have been detected as originated by a robodialer are in NoMoRobo's blacklist, nothing else. It obviously cannot detect robodialers whose numbers are not yet on its blacklist. Just like your e-mail address, you need to protect your phone number. Anyone to whom you dole out your phone number could pass it on. Any number you call where that end uses ANI (Automatic Number Identification) can record your phone number, like any 800, 888, or 900 number you call or you call anyone using ANI to log your phone number when you call them. Credit bureaus give out your phone number and spilling other personal information just for the asking. I use simultaneous ring at the phone/cell providers. No software. So, I don't have experience with using NoMoRobo's Android or iOS app (which requires a $2/mo subscription). Alas, many "free" apps are adware platforms. You sure you got more phone calls from spammers or instead might you have gotten hit with an add (that might pretend it was a call)? Some adware apps just use a banner to show their ads. This is probably least intrusive but it isn't completely safe. I've seen ads that tried to pretend (within the banner section) that my Back, Home, and Recent buttons had suddenly moved into the screen (instead of the real and dedicated buttons at the bottom of the phone). Some phones no longer have buttons. They have touch points on the screen, and the fake ads are trying to get you to tap on the wrong buttons. Some adware apps present fullscreen ads. This interferes with your use of the app since you have to somehow get out of the ad to get back to the app. For those, usually pressing the Back button gets me back to the app. I would never use the "X", "Close", or other pseudo-button presented in the fullscreen ad since you really don't what script lies behind that element. Some adware apps will present fullscreen ads when you are no longer using the app. You think you exited the app but Android doesn't work like Linux or Windows: exiting an Android app leaves it running in memory in the background until the OS needs to reuse that memory for a newly loaded app. So apps often remain running in the background, and I've encountered some that would puke out fullscreen apps that interfere with the use of my phone until you get rid of the fullscreen ad (e.g., ES File Explorer did that when I tried that file manager app). I don't know if NoMoRobo's app qualifies as an adware app, especially since you have to subscribe at $2/mo to use their app (if they're charging for a subscription, they shouldn't be presenting ads as they are already generating a revenue stream). If your phone was more robust and could handle apps, there are some that do client-initiated filtering but I'm sure they do require a data plan. I don't like how TrueCaller works (they harvest your contacts list). Whitepages Caller ID got renamed to Hiya and I used that before engaging NoMoRobo. While NoMoRobo ONLY addresses robodialing callers, Hiya is more like an e-mail anti-spam filter: Hiya has their blacklist of spam and scam callers. As I recall, it can't do anything until after the first ring. The Caller ID is sent between the first and second rings. So, you will get bothered with one ring from a spammer (just as when using NoMoRobo) but if the call survives to the second ring then it's safer to pick it up. No blacklist is going to be perfect and spammers are constantly altering their intrusion schemes. Did you see my scheme of disabling ringtones on your cell phone (set to silent for all calls) and enabling a ringtone on each contact or on a My little TrakFone has a setting for 'Silent' which i use all the time, But it is not silent, it means you are choosing the buzzer, or vibration mode. I don't know if I could set ringtones for my real contacts or not, never looked further since can't silence the phone. group of contacts (if your phone supports groups of contacts)? That way, the only time your phone will ring is when a contact calls you. All other callers with either hangup (typical of spammers) or have to leave a voicemail message (if they don't leave a message then their call was not important). Since you have a very low-end (barely smart) phone, you would have to see what control you have over ringtones either globally (for all calls) or if you can assign ringtones to specific contacts or groups of contacts. You don't need NoMoRobo with this scheme, or blacklists at your provider (that you have to update), or a smartphone app (e.g., Hiya). You just need to silence your phone for all calls and then use ringtones ONLY for your contacts. Obviously you do need a voicemail feature with this setup, so good callers can leave you a message who aren't in your contacts list. I don't see a $7/month Tracfone plan. The smallest smartphone plan I can find at Tracfone's web site is $15/month (200 call minutes, 500 texts, and 500 MB for data). I cannot find a Tracfone smartphone plan with no data quota. Their basic plans roll calls, texts, and data all together into a minute quota for varying number of service days. The smallest basic phone plan that I found is $9.99/month for just 30 minutes (talk, text, & web). I looked and can't find my plan anymore either (basic phone, not smart). But they've been charging me $6.50/month for a long time now.Comes right off my credit card, and if they suddenly decide to send you a new card you have to go thru hell to get hooked back up with TrakFone (if you forget the billing arrangement) I've had 2 hours worth of minutes for about 2 years now. Thinks it's down to 70-some minutes now. They frantically try to sell me minutes at the end of every month. Unless I"m expecting a call I just ignore the goddamn thing. Apparently with all current plans available they force you to buy minutes every month. Most of my friends have chosen Consumer Cellular and a better quality phone for about 4 times what I'm paying. Maybe that's in my future. So far today I haven't gotten anymore crap calls on my cell. ??? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
telephone hackers - can we upload something?
"VanguardLH" wrote
| | I don't see a $7/month Tracfone plan. The smallest smartphone plan I | can find at Tracfone's web site is $15/month (200 call minutes, 500 | texts, and 500 MB for data). I cannot find a Tracfone smartphone plan | with no data quota. Their basic plans roll calls, texts, and data all | together into a minute quota for varying number of service days. The | smallest basic phone plan that I found is $9.99/month for just 30 | minutes (talk, text, & web). I use a Tracphone, which I only keep in my truck as a portable phone booth, turned on as needed. The phone was $10, I think. I have to buy $20 worth of minutes every 3 months to keep my minutes. That's it. I now have about 2,000 minutes stored because I rarely use it. I can use data and a web browser, but it's a limited, cheap flip phone and it's not meant for that. I once made the mistake of reading a text and I think it cost me something like $4 worth of minutes! The message was from my niece, announcing that she was at Starbucks and would "be right over". Great. It cost me $4 for her to tell me she's not here yet. I can't see who sent a text without reading it, so I just never read them. And despite turning on the phone only once every couple of weeks, on average, I do get some junk calls. But I don't check my messages unless I'm expecting a call. Though it's surprising how many people actually don't believe that I'm not using my cellphone. They think that's my "real" number because that's how they use their cellphone. So once I give them the number they insist on calling or sending texts, then complain that I didn't call back. I have to explain again that I really don't use my cellphone much and that I *might* get their phone message next month. Awhile back I tried the camera on my Tracphone. It works OK! But I can only get the images off with bluetooth, and they seem to be blurry. I haven't yet figured out whether that's a fault of the phone or just a dirty lens.... Not as good as an iPhone, but then again, it was 1/100th the cost. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|