Re: See this security pack DO NOT OPEN

Right!! And what happened to our RIGHT TO PRIVACY?????

Stupid bastard judges.....must have been paid off by some telemarketing outfit.

Reply to
Steve Hoskins
Loading thread data ...

The easiest way around this has been available to us for over 20 years - use an answering machine to screen your calls. Telemarketers hang up immediately.

Walt

Reply to
OLDFARHT

Actually, it's not the answering machine that causes them to hang up. The equipment they use dials multiple numbers at once, and whoever answers first gets the sales pitch. Your answering machine is simply delaying picking-up longer that some other poor shmoe...

--Dan

Reply to
Dan O'Connor

Actually, there is no Constitutional "Right to Privacy" per se, there's only the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Tenth Amendment was designed as a catch-all against government abuse. In essence, the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) states *explicitly* what the government can do and what it cannot do. The Tenth Amendment was set up so that if the Framers forgot anything, then that too goes on the government's "cannot do" list.

The simple language of the Tenth Amendment notwithstanding, the omission of a "Right to Privacy" is providing a comfortable living for many lawyers on both sides of the issue, in everything from credit ratings to banking information, from grocery-buying habits to medical histories, and from telephone wiretaps to no-knock warrants...

--Dan

Reply to
Dan O'Connor

The point is: it's YOUR phone, in YOUR house. YOU'RE paying the bill. You shouldn't have to turn *anything* off to stop unwelcome intrusions (other than your boss, when you don't show up after that hard night out)...

--Dan

Reply to
Dan O'Connor

No. It's not. The way this virus works, is that when a machine is infected it scans email address books, usenet newsgroup files etc for addresses. It sends itself to all the addresses, and uses one of them to fake the sender-address. So that if it can't get delivered it gets bounced to the "sender".

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

Actually, the privacy manager has worked well for me. I do get the odd "out of area" which I then don't pick up. As another caller suggested, I do have an answering system on my lines which catch that stuff. I've not had an annoying telemarketing call for a while. My wife unblocks her line (that is, she has turned PM off) so that our daughter's school chum parents can call and not get the annoying PM intercept. I've tried to explain to her to tell those people that blocking their caller ID doesn't work with busineses (they get 'em no matter what), or to out of state destinations. But those "privacy" fanatics insist that when THEY call, they should be able to do so annonomously. What poop. Anyway, my wife's line continues to be hounded with annoying calls.

Another technique which worked with reputable telemarketers (MCI, ATT, most magazine sales) was to say, "Please place me on your Do Not Call list." One of the direct marketing associations insist that their member respect such a request. The aforementioned three did and I haven't heard from them, nor has my wife, in over two years.

Ed.

in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Steve Hoskins at snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote on 9/26/03 3:35 PM:

Reply to
Edward A. Oates

Do you subscribe to any e-mail lists (i.e at Yahoo! or some hobby shops)? Many of them use a "blind copy" or otherwise don't include your e-mail address directly in the distribution list. You may miss them, also.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

This, BTW, is often the cause of a fone ring and no one there or line is dead. For example, say there are 10 telemarketing employees at work, their automatic equipment calls 100 numbers and when they get 10 answers or "off-hooks", the unanswered 90 are disconnected.

Too bad they cannot outlaw that type of equipment. :)

Ray H.

Reply to
TCol

Yes indeed, things do seem to be getting better this weekend! Good to hear your system has passed.

Let's hope the worst is over and we can then concentrate on messages we actually want to read!

David.

Reply to
David F.

I see - I am still getting a few returned messages, but logged at times I am not online! So I can't be sending them out myself.

Thanks for the insight into the virus 'workings'.

David.

Reply to
David F.

The security pack type messages got so bad I started running an anti spam program to block them at the server because it was taking so much time to download email. There are a lot less of them coming in over the past few days for me too. I've been running the freeware Anti Vir on my home computer and its kept every thing clean so far.

I think the problem if your getting lots of undelivered mail notices is the worm BugBear B and you don't have to open an attachment to get it. I think just clicking on an infected message to delete it or maybe just down loading the email is all it takes. Anyway we had a ton of these undelivered email emails coming in every day. BugBear infected files apparently were downloaded in music files as my Daughter thinks she may have closed the virus guard program by accident when she was down loading a bunch of stuff. Anti Vir's guard application was catching the worm in those returned emails and a scan found nine infected files on the drive that must have made it in on the unchecked files. Once these were deleted I had to reinstall IE, Winzip and several other things where files were ruined. The returned email stuff stopped instantly and completely. Bruce

Reply to
Bruce Favinger

However the new worm has its own smtp (email) engine and fakes the sender address with one of the addresses it finds on the infected machine. And if you check the headers you will find that most of the time it's not to you - the to-address is something like "internet user".

And some of the subjects it generates are returned-mail notices.

The only reason to suspect you are infected would be these sent to your own id, from names in your email or newsgroups files.

Norton or similar anti-virus scans will provide a high degree of confirmation.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

I have run System scans and set up mail rules to delete any Emails with attachments. This has stopped the bulk of the unwanted messages, but not all - so far.

Norton reports that my system is clean, with no infected files for the last week, but the 'returns' are still coming in at about

40-60 per day!

David.

Reply to
David F.

I wish that were all I get - I've got 20mb at my ISP and it fills that in about an hour so I'm losing _real_ email.

Some ISPs are being responsible. Mine isn't.

When I contacted them they told me to run the latest version of an antivirus program. Which I do as a matter of course.

Their tech support couldn't understand that the infected attachment isn't the problem - it's the sheer volume of them which amounts to a denial of service attack.

Reply to
Christopher A. Lee

Contact information: See

formatting link
Also read the statement of the American Teleservices (a/k/a Telemarketing) Association about its 'problem' with being able to use their telephones lately, including their contact instructions.

formatting link

They won the Denver lawsuit blocking the do-not-call list and are fighting the do-not-call list every inch of the way. According to CNN, they are also telling their members to keep calling people on the federal list despite the fact that these are people who asked not to be called.

Reply to
Steve

How's this for strange....

I get regular messages telling me that my Email Inbox is "nearly full", which is odd as I don't have a fixed limit on my Inbox as far as I know!

David.

Reply to
David F.

The equal protection clause of the constitution says that we're all equal. Ought his court clerk, Greg Langham, whose home phone number is 303-979-

6328, be any more deserving of privacy protections for his phone number than I am for my home phone number? If telemarketers can harass me at home, should Nottingham's staffers somehow be exempt?
Reply to
socks

If the courts are going to say that commercial speech is protected, then they're going to have to resolve the conflict that brings up with court rulings supporting the Military Honor and Decency Act - which allows a secretive panel to be the judges of what adult material can and can't be sold on the military bases. This was an act wanted by just a small number of bluenoses, much to the dislike of the 2 million men and women in uninform. It was upheld multiple times as not being an infringement on free speech. Hmmmmmm Val (MSgt, USAF, Ret)

Reply to
VManes

"Edward A. Oates" wrote: ll" registry and the FTC fine associated with their regulation.

Not necessarily. I was reading an article today that opined that simply re-writing the regulation to allow the consumer to choose to also block charity/non-profits might be sufficient.

The judge's decision reflected that thinking: Why is a commercial call more annoying than a non-commercial call and therefore subject to blocking? They're both intrusions.

What's aggravating is that the FTC considered this approach but rejected it.

BTW, Georgia has a similar state system that is quite effective. And equally less effective because it exempts charities.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

Reply to
Mike Tennent

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.