Also: NTP vs. RIM; and Banking on Phishing
Controlling the Internet
Regarding “’Net neutrality debate heating up”: The most important element of Internet pricing is completely ignored in your discussion regarding Internet neutrality: bandwidth. Everyone already is charged for what they use on the Internet, period. As a former administrator for an ISP, I know this discussion about Internet costs is completely off-track, because it ignores this point. When anyone uses more bandwidth, they are already charged for increased usage. So what is going on here is the slippery-slope strategy to completely confuse and befuddle the consumer and Congress. The greedy ones that cannot monopolize this growing revenue stream are trying to force their way in the back door.
Have we forgot that many of the big technology companies of today started out in a garage? The Internet cannot be commercialized to favor the already privileged. Next you will redefine this concept as a free market. Hah!
To make the issue of bandwidth easier to understand, there is a term in the ISP community — data pipe — which basically refers to bandwidth. The more bandwidth, the bigger the pipe, and what this means to this whole two-tier pricing which makes it moot — the more bandwidth (bigger pipe), the faster throughput or speed. So to get faster speed, you get bigger pipes (more bandwidth), which you already pay for on a sliding scale. Google system administrators, like other big bandwidth user administrators, estimate and tweak the amount of bandwidth to serve their users and run the equipment without “over-running the equipment”– pushing the routers and switches beyond their capability, which is performance measurable. The Internet-controller wannabes have invented the concept of two-tier pricing as a smoke and mirror to what they really want – control.
Greg Kainer
Denver, Colo.
NTP vs. RIM
Regarding Kevin Tolly’s column, “NTP vs. RIM: A good deal for lawyers”: NTP had already licensed BlackBerry competitors, so there was a licensed legal alternative. In fact, there were several.
As to NTP paying large sums to attorneys, unfortunately that is about the only option open to small entities. They don’t have the money to assert their patents, so they arrange a contingency deal. Litigation is extremely expensive for patentees. Seldom can small entities afford it.
Stephen Wren
Actuary/inventor
St. Louis, Mo.
Banking on phishing
Regarding Winn Schwartau’s column, “Big bank goes phishing”: Every bank in the world will ask for that information (name, address, date of birth, account number, and so on) when you call them. The biggest problem is that they don’t have any other way to perform an ID check over the phone. The same holds true for cell phone providers or just about any other company. In addition, the bank could have asked a security question that Schwartau would have set up in advance (for example, the name of a pet) or a PIN number.
If Schwartau is so worried about ID theft that he can’t trust his bank when he calls it, maybe he should perform his own background check on the individuals with whom he deals at the bank. Most of the information, albeit public or not, is not needed to steal someone’s identity. A lot of the thefts today only require a name and any account number. Your password means nothing to someone who wants to use your identity, so they would not even call the bank to get it. It might mean something to the small-time thief who just wants to use your account to buy a stereo, but not anyone who wants to really steal your identity. Your account information is not completely available in your view of the online services with your bank, so the password would only allow funds to be transferred, not a complete identity theft. The public information is what can cause problems. Name, address, phone number, date of birth and employment location are the things people can use to steal identities.
If Schwartau has some other means of verifying an identity over the telephone that can be implemented with current technology in place, then he is one miracle worker. If he doesn’t, then maybe he needs to look at what security really is. I believe security is knowing what you can afford to lose and that is all you allow to be known to anyone.
Carl Beck
Owner
All About Photos
Oakwood, Ga.
Winn Schwartau is not wrong; this is the way many banks handle security matters. But has he considered that he might have been phished by the woman who called him back to discuss a “problem”? It is not unknown for employees of banks or other organizations to go phishing (I had a first-hand experience), and Schwartau should be concerned if he did not verify her identity before he answered her questions. How does he know that she was in fact a bank employee? Can he be sure that a few days, weeks, months from now he will not find his account(s) cleaned out? Phishers do not always take action immediately. If Schwartau didn’t change his password right after the phone call, he should do it now.
Al Johnson
Bangkok, Thailand
What I find particularly galling about many financial institutions is their occasional false sense of what security means. If I call up to inquire about my wife’s account, they don’t even bother running through the usual security questions (all of which I of course know the answers to) because I don’t “sound like” my wife, or rather a woman. All I would have to do is get a female “accomplice,” feed her any security information the institution might require, and she would pass their security screen. Drives me nuts.
Don Berliner
Philadelphia
