Some items from The Rio Linda Elverta News, March 11, 2004:
Verizon Spyware on your
computer?
CSA 11 & Park District -- funding affected?
Letters re article "KCRA-TV Channel 3 hatchets Water
District"
Verizon
Spyware on your computer?
Welcome CD-ROM is culprit
by Jay O'Brien
With the recently enacted number portability FCC rule, my wife and I
decided to combine our cellphones with one company. We decided on
Verizon, as it has superior coverage in the areas we frequent.
We decided to get two new identical phone instruments so we could share
one hands-free setup in our car. So far, we are quite happy with the
new phones and Verizon's service. However, there's a catch.
With the new cellphones came a "Welcome CD-ROM". We ran the CD on our
computers and found that it was about equivalent to the instruction
book, and perhaps a bit more user friendly.
After removing the CD-ROMS, our computers started trying to call out on
the internet! Fortunately, we run a firewall, and the attempts were
blocked. The CD-ROM installed a spyware program, called Noptify.exe.
Noptify tries to connect with a James Tower Company, in Minnesota.
James Tower, according to their web site, sells tracking technology
that generates reports on the use of the CD-ROM, hyperlinks (on the
internet) visited from the CD-ROM, and emails or visits to a web site
that resulted from viewing the CD-ROM. It is collecting information on
what actions are taken by a computer user.
Noptify is a "stealth" program. Unlike software that the user
deliberately installs, there is no "uninstall" selection for the user
to remove the program. Rather, the user is not even notified that it
has been installed, much less how to uninstall it. Unless the user has
a firewall, noptify just does its job of contacting James Tower in the
background, with the user unaware. With a firewall, noptify tries to
contact James Tower 81 times over a 20 minute period, then it removes
itself until the next time the computer is rebooted.
I must wonder if Verizon realizes that the information it collects with
its spyware program is only from computer users who have not installed
and properly configured a firewall. Does Verizon not wish to gather
information from people who know how to administer their computers?
Whatever information Verizon captures with this spyware is skewed as a
result of it not collecting data from everyone who uses their CD-ROM.
I queried Verizon via their web site and received no answer. I called
Verizon on the phone, and was told that the CDs (even though they
clearly say they are Verizon CDs) are furnished by the cellphone
manufacturer, not Verizon, and that I would have to take my problem up
with the manufacturer, not Verizon. I talked to the manufacturer, who
informed me that Verizon furnishes the CDs; the manufacturer just puts
them in the boxes. What a run-around.
I then emailed the Verizon President, using an old email address from
several years ago. An email address not now available on the Verizon
web site. I got a response, and Verizon admitted responsibility for the
program. Verizon claims the program will remove itself after 20
reboots; I haven't checked this, but with the newfound reliability of
Windows XP, that could take a year or more. And this all from running
the Verizon welcome CD-ROM one time and then removing it immediately.
Verizon ultimately provided instructions to me on how to remove their
Noptify spyware from my computer. Unfortunately their
instructions are not complete, and their responses to my queries are
vague and misleading. Following Verizon's removal instructions only
removes a portion of what the CD-ROM installed when it was inserted
into the computer.
In Windows there is a "registry" that tells the computer about
installed software. Verizon's removal instructions don't remove the
four registry entries that refer to Noptify. And Verizon's removal
instructions remove only one of the three copies of Noptify their
CD-ROM installs.
My communication with Verizon continues. Visit http://obri.net/verizon
for more information and to see my attempts to communicate with
Verizon.
In the meantime, if you get a Verizon "Welcome" CD-ROM, don't run it in
your Windows computer!
Published in Rio Linda Elverta News March
11, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
CSA11
and Park District
funding
affected?
by Jay O'Brien
Sacramento County has applied to the Sacramento Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) to create a new
"service area". County Service Area 11 (CSA 11) was approved by the
Board of Supervisors in February as a means for "providing a
replacement revenue source for certain items that are cut in the
budget". CSA 11 is a means for County taxpayers to agree to a new tax
scheme.
CSA11 would include all of urbanized Sacramento County that is not in
the cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom and Rancho
Cordova. Thus Rio Linda Elverta would be in CSA 11.
LAFCO, doing its investigative work prior to approving the County's
proposal, queried all of the Independent Special Districts in the
County to determine their potential revenue loss should CSA 11 be
"detached" from each agency. LAFCO asks each agency "How will the
proposal affect the ability of your agency to continue to provide
services in the territory not included in the proposed change of
organization" and "How will the proposal affect the financing and
operation of your agency?
CSA 11 includes all of the territory of the Rio Linda & Elverta
Recreation and Park District (RLERPD). The County's application says
that CSA 11 would provide "...the following extended services: extended
police protection; local park, recreation or parkway facilities and
services; and other miscellaneous services, including but not limited
to, animal control."
As RLERPD now provides our local park and parkway facilities and
services, the intent of the CSA 11 application to LAFCO is not clear.
Does it mean that the County would take over for RLERPD? Does it mean
that RLERPD would cease to receive the tax revenue it now receives?
Does it mean that the County would somehow add "extended" park and
recreation facilities over and above those provided by RLERPD?
Stay tuned. The only thing certain is that if CSA 11 is formed, it will
establish a new means to tax us, perhaps again for what we already
receive.
Published in Rio Linda
Elverta News March 11, 2004 - Scroll for other articles
The
following letters refer to the article "KCRA-TV Channel 3 hatchets
Water District" published March 4, 2004. Click here to review that
article.
Editor, The NEWS,
Jay O'Brien News? I have been reading your version of fair and balanced
reporting of the water district and specifically Director Harris for
some time now and I must point out to you that people who are
principled believing that truth, justice and moral judgment come well
before a rush to judgment will eventually be the winner.
Mr. O'Brien I question your truth, justice and moral judgement. When
will you see yourself as the winner? I am sure you thought we would be
impressed to see those great frames from the TV. and I'm sure you
searched frame by frame to find the best shots you could. And I am sure
you are a Great Guy and a credit to the community, but frankly I am
pretty fed up with your self-serving journalism week after week.
Now we finally get to the real issue at hand, journalistic ethics. Mr.
O'Brien, your articles are the most one-sided scratch sheet that I have
ever seen. Who gave you the title of Judge, jury and executor? And who
is in total denial when it comes to totally disregarded any
journalistic ethics in the process.
Mr O'Brien, why did you not include the general manager picture in your
hatchets report along with his untruthful statement to KCRA that the
district has not had a rate increase since 1994?
You allege that Director Harris violated Public Law when she
specifically identified the exact amount being paid for health benefits
for a retired general manager. Are you telling us that retiree health
benefits are not public information? Or is this your deliberate and
appalling fabrication?
One last question Mr. O'Brien, did you or the RL News get permission to
reproduce the images of Director Harris and Charlea Moore from KCRA?
Copyright law secures for the creator the exclusive right to control
who can make copies derived from their original work. The following
types of uses are usually deemed fair uses: News reporting -- for
example, summarizing an article, with brief quotations, in a news
report is fair use. But if you are competing with the source you are
copying from with the intent to use in your own similar work, isn't
likely a fair use.
Elverta resident
A Johnson
Editor's Note:
A. Johnson, we regret that you did not leave a phone number or address
so we could contact you. It is against the policy of The NEWS to
publish letters that solicit requests for money from our readers.* Thus
that portion of your letter was not published.
*The NEWS
reserves the right to make exceptions for non profit organizations
and/or established charities at its discretion.
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Truth, justice and
moral judgment do come well before a rush to judgment. Thank you for
recognizing that concept.
You asked "why did
you not include the general manager picture in your hatchets report
along with his untruthful statement to KCRA that the district has not
had a rate increase since 1994?" The statement to which you refer was
made on camera by the KCRA reporter, not by Andres. She said "Andres
says it was the first rate increase since 1994", referring to the rate
increase promulgated by the rate committee on which Mary Harris was a
member. A correct statement to the best of my knowledge. Andres'
picture was not included because KCRA-TV got the caption correct, as
opposed to their errors on the others.
You refer to
Public Law 104-191. While I am flattered that you have suggested that I
am "Judge, jury and executor[sic]", I do not make the laws. If you take
exception with this law, I recommend you contact your Congressperson.
Thank you for
correctly identifying our report on the KCRA-TV hatchet job as
"summarizing an article, with brief quotations, in a news report". You
will note that each of our published images carry the logo of the
source.
Avner, thank you
for writing. Please write again.
Jay O'Brien
Editor, The NEWS:
Wow, talk about misrepresentation of the water districts aired during
the KCRA news report. I thought it was really sad that KCRA did
such a pathetic job of research. If they did any at all.
They only heard what they wanted to which is sensationalism. SAD!
If we are to continue to have a Water District serve our area we need
to help it not constantly attack it. I believe the rate payers
deserve to have the best they can but that will not be the case when we
are "Merged or Dissolved or Destroyed Completely" by a larger Water
Conveyer; just wait and see what the rates will be then. Better
start a savings account now!
Simply Concerned,
Dianna Sutton
Elverta
jump to top of page
