Cost of Blocking Personal Wi-Fi Hotspots: $600,000


computerworld‘Here’s some payback for everyone who has felt gouged by hotel charges for Wi-Fi service: Marriott International has to pay $600,000 following a probe into whether it intentionally blocked personal Wi-Fi hotspots in order to force customers to use its own very pricey service.

‘The U.S. Federal Communications Commission looked into allegations that employees of Marriott’s Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville used signal-blocking features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system to prevent customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots, the regulator said in its consent decree. The hotel charged customers and exhibitors $250 to $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network…’
more

Aussie man pranks Manila call center agents with his fluent Filipino speaking skills [Video]
A friend introduced me to his Italian friend. The white man startled me when he spoke in fluent Filipino. I didn’t know he was living in Manila for a long time yet.

‘What happens when Chris Urbano, Tagalog speaking Aussie host of Maputing Cooking, calls up Aussie businesses with BPO ops in the Philippines? It’s the phone call you’d LEAST expect and a MUST WATCH for anyone who’s ever been a call centre agent in Manila – watch as Urbano tries to wrangle a discount on his banking services, apply for a job, and is eventually busted by one savvy agent with a great memory for voices…’
video

Will your unread Facebook messages be deleted?
Yes, so don’t click on that email
‘Facebook Cybercriminals have spammed out messages claiming that recipients are at risk of having their unread messages on Facebook deleted.

‘The reason? To lure you into clicking on a link sent out by pill-pushers, that could end up making a hole in your pocket.

‘Here’s a typical example of an email that has been spammed out, claiming to come from “Facebook Administration”:…’
examples

LIBEL LAWS VARY ACROSS THE GLOBE
Filipina sued for ‘libelous’ posts on Facebook
‘The complainant maintained that Facebook posting does not fall as similar means as stated in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Caingles also contended that there was no intention of malice in her post as the facts stated in the post were true.

‘The prosecutor also stated that the commission of libel should have the elements of imputation, publication, identity and malice. The first element was met based on the statements in the postings of Caingles.

‘Zozobrado also considered the Facebook postings as publicized as they were shared to a third party while the complainant was also properly identified in the posts.

‘But Zozobrado, however, refused to decide on the element of malice and on Caingles’ claim of privileged communication stating that these matters should be discussed in court…’
more

Advertisements

About DigitalPlato

Poch is a Bookrix author and a freelance writer. He is a frequent contributor to TED Conversations.
This entry was posted in cybercrime, humor, news, social media, social networking and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What do you think?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s