Wookalar writes "I received a call today from the police asking about a prank/threatening call that someone in town received. After a big hoopla it turns out that it was a former co-worker who received the call, and it was claimed the blocked call had originated from my phone. The officer was somehow offended though I was going to great lengths to be calm and co-operative. Even after a phone call from my friend telling the officer to not arrest me, he informed her that he was going to get a warrant and arrest me anyway because (as I was told by the other party) I had pissed him off. I had my lawyer call him as well, and he was rebuffed by the officer as well. My friend then called his superior who made him back down. Color me shocked as I have no idea about the call, and am trying to figure out how it would have come to point at me. I called my phone company today and they did a search for me while on the phone and I was told that I had not called the number in question in that period. Anyone have any ideas about how this could have happened? How would my number come up as a caller ID blocked call when the phone company sent the report to the police -- when this never happened?"

I have just got off the chat line with Comcast Cable's technical support. I'm pasting the session below. Obviously I spent some time posturing, but I am curious -- does anyone have any information on the branding software? I'm particularly concerned about the bit regarding encryption at the end.

As you can see I did attempt to get more information a number of times -- in what I hope were different appeal levels. What I got was enough to cause me some concern.

I am aware that iedkcs32.dll is acutally used to customize IE.

Your opinions welcome.

===============chat log pasted here=================

Problem: technician came to work on my modem -- installed w/o my permission branding and software on my computer. I want

instructions on how to get your name off my internet explorer

=================================================================

user david_ has entered room

David(Wed Apr 9 22:53:57 EDT 2008)>technician came to work on my modem -- installed w/o my permission branding and software on my computer. I want instructions on how to get your name off my internet explorer

analyst Nicole has entered room

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:54:05 EDT 2008)>Hello david_, Thank you for contacting Comcast Live Chat Support. My name is Nicole. Please

give me one moment to review your information.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:54:27 EDT 2008)>Hey David. Are you referring to the Comcast branding?

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:55:29 EDT 2008)>yes

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:55:47 EDT 2008)>i did not ask for it, and it is not necessary for the functioning of my internet connection.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:54:52 EDT 2008)>That automatically gets put on there with the installation, I can provide instructions how to remove it. One moment please.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:56:21 EDT 2008)>I DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANY SOFTWARE TO BE INSTALLED, NOR CHANGES TO MY SYSTEM. He was here to install a cable modem not to

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:56:45 EDT 2008)>run any software on my pc. I know from my 20+ years in IT that no software was necessary.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:55:53 EDT 2008)>he didn't install the branding, I assure you. it comes with the internet that the technician installs.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:56:03 EDT 2008)>Here are the instructions to remove it:

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:56:05 EDT 2008)>Close all browser windows
Click Start > Run
Type rundll32 iedkcs32.dll,Clear

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:56:14 EDT 2008)>Click OK
Reboot the PC
Open Internet Explorer and the Comcast branding is now removed

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:57:55 EDT 2008)>thanks.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:57:10 EDT 2008)>I'm sorry for the frustration, David.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:58:11 EDT 2008)>however, it was not necessary for him to run any software on my PC.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:58:19 EDT 2008)>a modem swap does not require it.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:58:27 EDT 2008)>no software was used to activate it on my computer.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:58:59 EDT 2008)>it is run through my router, not my pc.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:59:20 EDT 2008)>And software was installed also.. i have icons on my desktop, and on my start menu that I didn't authorize.

david_(Wed Apr 9 22:59:52 EDT 2008)>(I know you didn't do it, but i'm very angry that this was done unnessarily).

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:59:21 EDT 2008)>Sorry about that David. Any software that was installed can be deleted if you wish.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:00:37 EDT 2008)>yes.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 22:59:48 EDT 2008)>Is there anything else I can assist you with tonight?

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:00:52 EDT 2008)>BUT i should not have to delete software off my PC that *I* never installed.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:01:00 EDT 2008)>That is an invasion of property at the least.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:01:32 EDT 2008)>God only knows what iedkcs32.dll is actually doing -- it is an unauthorized piece of software attached to my internet explorer that is running w/o my knowledge.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:01:48 EDT 2008)>(obviously I don't think it is any other than annoying), but I have no way of knowing this.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:01:00 EDT 2008)>you can contact your local office and file a complaint against the technician if you would like.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:02:03 EDT 2008)>It could well be violating my constitutional right to privacy and forwarding

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:02:08 EDT 2008)>information I choose to not share.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:02:35 EDT 2008)>I think a complaint to comcast for instructing him in this unnessecary change in my system is

in order

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:02:52 EDT 2008)>not the technician -- he was doing as he was told. It is a managment, and marketing issue

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:02:25 EDT 2008)>Would you like me to forward this issue to my manager?

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:03:30 EDT 2008)>So i'm sure it wasn't acutally the local office

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:03:44 EDT 2008)>i'm just angry and your the unlucky one to have answered my tech request.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:03:53 EDT 2008)>I am thankful for you telling what to do to get rid of it.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:04:03 EDT 2008)>just I am mad that I had to have to ask.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:03:03 EDT 2008)>it's a legitimate complaint.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:05:01 EDT 2008)>You could forward this to someone higher up to review if you want .. might make a difference,

though I doubt it -- unless someone needs to realize that activities like this are questionably legal.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:04:25 EDT 2008)>I will make sure to forward this issue to my manager, not a problem.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:04:31 EDT 2008)>We get a lot of complaints about it.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:05:32 EDT 2008)>ethically dubious at the least.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:05:33 EDT 2008)>

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:06:14 EDT 2008)>anyway, i do thank you. I will press OK soon as we close this. Thank you for being nice,

and reasonable for me and sending the answer.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:06:43 EDT 2008)>What I would ask your manager is to add the instructions fro removal of this to the

Frequently Asked Questions, or the knowledge base

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:06:56 EDT 2008)>I did try to find an answer before I came to you via this method

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:06:18 EDT 2008)>That's a good suggestion. Yeah, you can't find it anywhere on the site, it's for our eyes

only haha.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:07:29 EDT 2008)>The uninstall of the rest of the software in the control panel at the least should remove

this as well. Every piece of code should be deleted, and every registry key needs to go away.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:08:12 EDT 2008)>i mean really -- a piece of software? totally unneccessary if ALL it does is put your name

on my IE title bar

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:08:47 EDT 2008)>a registry setting should accomplish that. Thus I'm specifically concerned about other

actions it maybe doing behind my back as it were

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:08:05 EDT 2008)>I assure you, it wouldn't do anything else but be an annoyance.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:09:05 EDT 2008)>not being a software engineer, I can't tell.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:10:07 EDT 2008)>Unfortunately with what SONY has done w/ their CD's in recent history, I wouldn't put it past

any corporate suit to have the most nefarious attachements in some such other wise inoccuious appearing piece of software.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:10:33 EDT 2008)>Like i said -- if it only needed to change the title bar - it is over kill. I find it hard to

believe it only has that one purpose.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:09:38 EDT 2008)>I don't blame you for being concerned at all.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:11:46 EDT 2008)>anyway, thanks for your time. I will poke around at it, and see what if any info is easily

extractable before I delete it entirely

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:11:10 EDT 2008)>Okay, well good luck removing it all.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:11:20 EDT 2008)>I'll be sure to forward your comlpaints on to my manager.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:11:24 EDT 2008)>complaints**

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:12:50 EDT 2008)>any other things you know that ishould also look at? If i find something else hidden and

running... i'll be really annoyed

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:12:36 EDT 2008)>haha. No, I don't believe there is anything else you will find, other than the weird

encryptions that came with the branding software.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:13:56 EDT 2008)>what the hell does "branding" need with encryptions?

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:14:08 EDT 2008)>the only thing you encrypt is traffic you don't want intercepted and encoded..

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:13:09 EDT 2008)>I have no idea, to be totally honest.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:14:17 EDT 2008)>Right..

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:14:31 EDT 2008)>(i mean i belive you, but i don't believe it it is harmless any more)

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:13:51 EDT 2008)>I'm not even sure why they use that branding, everyone asks to remove it.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:15:31 EDT 2008)>I'll have to bring this up on slashdot and see if anyone there has insights.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:14:45 EDT 2008)>Not familiar, sorry.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:15:52 EDT 2008)>slashdot.org

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:16:10 EDT 2008)>news for nerds, and stuff that matters.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:16:13 EDT 2008)>

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:15:26 EDT 2008)>News for Nerds... Nice.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:15:33 EDT 2008)>Just our cup of tea eh? haha.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:16:46 EDT 2008)>yep.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:17:10 EDT 2008)>so.. about the encryptions. is that embeded in what the remove command will resolve or is

there something else I need to address.

Nicole(Wed Apr 9 23:17:03 EDT 2008)>I believe everything will be removed with the command prompt I've given you. It removes the

branding, so I would assume it would remove everything that was installed along with the branding software.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:18:48 EDT 2008)>ok. well, thanks for your time, and who knows -- maybe we'll be on slashdot soon.

david_(Wed Apr 9 23:18:58 EDT 2008)>our 15miliseconds of fame

I was angered yesterday when at starbucks I attempted to connect to the internet - Much to my suprise it is now being controlled by T-Mobile's service.

I wrote to complain about this change in policy. I know I've sat in Starbucks in the past and jumped right onto Wi-Fi. Now it is a $30 a month service metered by T-Mobile. Or, $10 for the first hour and ten cents a minute for all follow on.

I received a response from Starbucks, and though I know my first email obviously did little other than make me feel better I replied to this one as well. My little one way fued with Starbucks.

---------------------------------------------------

Hello Alyssa ,

I am not in the least convinced by your response. My original position is valid and correct. You contracted with T-Mobile for this service, and if Starbucks isn't getting a portion of the proceeds -- well lets just say I would need to see a letter from your lawyers and a corporate financial statement to believe that. Why else would Starbucks have decided to choose a method such as this? There is NO value added service that is otherwise unavailable to the internet user that T-Mobile can provide the consumer that I don't have access to with out suddenly having to use them if I were to ever go back to Starbucks.

You don't have to have T-Mobile -- there has to be some financial gain to Starbucks or you would not have gone that way. To lay it off on the provider that Starbucks agreed to work with is diversionary at best. Starbuck's attempt here to disassociate your corporate self from this is sad and pathetic.

Exactly how naive does Starbucks think the public is? And to gouge me for more to sit in your establishment than it would cost me for full time DSL at home that I can use all the time ($20 a month in my area)? Exactly how many hours would I have to sit in Starbucks for this to be a worthwhile investment of my money?

I repeat [refering to previous email] - internet access in coffeeshops is a standard non-charge draw across this great country. Appearantly Starbucks has missed the point again in what exactly customer service is. In a city where there are many internet choices, and being an IT professional who has contracted said services many times under many conditions and plans, I contend that Starbucks is not being honest nor fair in this service.

Appearantly high prices on coffee just doesn't bring enough profit. Now that needs to be suplimented in an unnecessarily expensive provision of "T-Mobile" internet offerings. The only service they are providing is that of Billing and revenue generation. I doubt that internet access would not exist in your stores without the service of T-Mobile -- for your employee and coporate requirements if nothing more.

You are not powerless in this regard as you intimate in your letter. It is a corporate choice that has been made at the expense of a service attitude towards one's customer base.

Your reply here appears to have been largely a broiler plate response to this complaint -- which makes me wonder exactly how many other (former like me?) customers have written, called, or otherwise attempted to communicate with you about this.

David

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: info@starbucks.com
To: davidspake1@hotmail.com
Subject: Response from Starbucks Coffee Company - Case # 4630248
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:25:22 -0700

Hello David,

Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

In partnership with T-Mobile and HP, Starbucks Coffee Company is proud to be offering T-Mobile HotSpot high-speed wireless Internet access in over 1,200 locations throughout the United States.

I can assure you that Starbucks values your comments and I shared your feedback with the appropriate department for their attention. However, T-Mobile, not Starbucks, is responsible for the pricing of this internet service.

For a list of Starbucks locations that offer this service, please visit T-Mobile's website: http://www.t-mobile.com If you have questions about or need help with the high speed Internet access at Starbucks, please call T-Mobile customer service at (800) 981-8563.

Thank you again for contacting Starbucks. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us at info@starbucks.com or call (800) 23-LATTE to speak with a customer relations representative.

Sincerely,

Alyssa R.

Starbucks Coffee Company

I'm working on a project, but haven't been able to really figure out the best approach yet.

Document Mangement -- Databases -- Interface -- Indexing -- Reporting

I am basically wanting to take "Word" documents (some format easily accessible to standard users) -- have them searchable via a web type interface. I will need to have the public side of this masking/hiding any personal information in all the documents, but on the internal side having all information available/viewable. I'm looking at potentially having in neighborhood of 7,000-10,000 documents added the first year.

Making this as automated as possible is a key concern/feature. I can "insist" on specific structures for formatting -- but as potentially hundreds will be submitting documents to the system there will undoubtably be those who don't know how to do this correctly.

A document request feature - which would spawn a customer service interaction.

*Tags, keywords (ideas for increased search accuracy)
*Timed notices: quarterly or other interval required updates/verification of accuracy - notices automatically emailed to inspire author participation. If no verification/change then removed from being publically searchable.
*Seachable index -- returns masked or not by user profile

-- i'm sure there are many concerns that i've not considered. Any ideas or participation would be great.

Prefer and open source solution or mix of OS products/projects - I'm not a coder/programmer - but am a systems admin and comfortable with configuration and the like for both windows and *nix.