Apparently, a 16 yr old has an IP phone, and it gets spoofed. Spoofer sends in a bomb threat, family gets rude awakening at 10pm despite alibi for son. During initial hearing, the agent(no name as yet) disregards the fact many similar incidents have happened, and denies spoofing even exists! When I heard this on the radio today, I knew just the sleuths to help on it.
Because he is charged under the Patriot Act(ironic, no?), he has no rights ala Gitmo. This has all the feel of bad precedent case law, and his own mother, Annette Lundeby, has severely limited visitation. There is an interview with her second hour on http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls or http://www.infowars.com/infowars.asx . She is currently searching for a pro-bono, better than public defender that can represent her case, IANAL, all computers and game consoles were confiscated.
Any cases proving phone spoofing would be greatly appreciated, I don't know his specific make/model, more details to come. The mother has documented the spoofers on youtube bragging on how they made this family suffer, can a slashdotter find? Youtube(Liveleak) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmgCT5abSA
Very chilling indeed!"
This morning I ran some standard tests: speed test (speedtest.net) reports that I have the full 1.5Mb/sec I bought. I tried viewing a YouTube video, a long one (50 minutes) and found the experience painful, about 20% of the speed it should be. I suspected QWest of rate limiting. I used an external proxy server to view the same YouTube video. It appeared to download at full speed.
I called QWest DSL support. They were unhelpful, even when I escallated to a supervisor. I next called "customer service". The lady I talked to said she wasn't a techie and barely understood the terms "rate limiting" and the like. She transferred me to "Broadband Retention". I explained the apparent rate limiting to that individual. He denied knowing anything about it, but did transfer me to "Louis" in some tech department (not regular DSL support). I explained my observations and tests one more time to "Louis". He denied that QWest was rate limiting. Louis did put me on hold for a good while. When he came back he referred me to the QWest "subscriber agreement" at:
He cites the second page, end of the first paragraph, where it says that QWest may limit speeds. He also cites a "FAQ on Excessive use Policy"
and admitted that QWest was, indeed, rate limiting YouTube and other streaming sites.
I asked for a discount based on degraded service. Louis conferenced me to "Jason" in the "loyalty group". I told Jason that I thought 1.5Mb/sec but with rate limited access to YouTube, etc, was worth about $10/month. Jason offered $15/month for 3 months. I said, "Not good enough. Make it permanent". He declined.
I told both Jason and Louis that would post a summary of my discussion with QWest to Consumerist, Reddit and Slashdot. I ended the conversation with a polite "Good day".
About 20 minutes later Lousi called to change his previous statement that QWest rate limits YouTube and others. He now declares that QWest does not rate limit. — From my observation, it does appear that QWest does rate limit. Maybe smarter folks than I can determine the truth."
Link to Original Source
"Obama has promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would urge the Senate to take up CIFTA. He is doing this under the cover of the drug cartel violence in Mexico. Obama and Calderon quoted a statistic echoed by the corporate media that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexican raids were purchased from U.S. gun shops and a reason why the U.S. needs to ratify this treaty. In fact, this is a lie — only a mere 17% of guns found at Mexico crime scenes have been traced to the U.S."
Lou Dobb's also discusses the affect it would have on 2nd amendment rights if ratified in Senate.
"One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors" — Plato"
Link to Original Source
These stories overstate the threat, and, in particular, only serve to loudly announce things which are already well known. For example, the fact that DoD systems are probed continuously by the Chinese. But! That's always been true. Where were all the alarming sounding news reports last year? Two years ago? Ten years ago? Where was Jay Rockefeller's Senate bill, S. 773, which aims to restrict Internet freedom in the United States in previous years? We can all expect the media heat to increase even more as the public is whipped into a frenzy of fear, and then comes to accept that we need the Federal Government to restrict our Internet freedom--for our own safety, of course!
As these stories come through Slashdot, we all bicker amongst ourselves as to how grave the threat is. Or where it's coming from. Or how we might combat it. It's so predictable. And while we're distracted with these irrelevant (although admittedly interesting in some cases) discussions, Senate and House bills are moving through our Congress right now which I consider to be "Patriot Acts" for the Internet. Nobody is talking about those, though.
We get what we deserve when we demand nothing at all.