Spotting Computer Scammers

I'm sure everyone has had the cold-call saying 'I am calling from Windows, your computer has a virus' or something very similar. Obviously not everyone is technically adept or highly computer literate, so I thought I'd put together this very simple (I hope :)) guide to spotting scammers of this type. I've been involved in IT since studying for my O Levels in 1985, over six years in Internet Technical Support helping customers understand their problems, so hopefully I can do the same for you.

If you're not interested in the explanation feel free to skip down to the One Simple Rule at the bottom, however I hope you will persevere with the explanation.

I will only use two items of IT jargon, and will explain them before I begin.

ISP: Your Internet Service Provider is the company you pay for Internet access - in some cases such as Virginmedia, Sky and BT also for your telephone and TV services.  Only they have your contact details such as telephone number and postal address.

IP Address: This is a unique number assigned to your Internet connection by your ISP when you connect to the Internet. This means if there is a problem of any kind your ISP and only your ISP can contact you to let you know.

That's the jargon out of the way :)

The Facts

• The only way to trace any virus back to your computer is by the IP address.  However this will not identify you personally, only the ISP you are with. Think of it like a postcode.. all that tells anyone on its own is what town you live in or near.
• To identify you and your actual address is only possible if the request is made by a member of law enforcement, such as the Police or a solicitor, to your ISP and must be in relation to a criminal investigation for which there will be a warrant.

[Addendum: 20.12.12: I have just taken a scam call who asked to speak to me by name.  When I pointed out the only company who could legally link my IP address to me personally he hung up. It seems they are using a - presumably stolen - database of names and telephone numbers.]

The Signs

Ways to tell immediately that the person is a scammer:

• Empty phone line before they speak. Generally the call connecting to one of their staff abroad.
• Calling 'from Windows'. Windows is a product not a company. There are teams within Microsoft, which is the company, who work on Windows, but they have nothing to do with consumers. Ever.
• Calling from Microsoft. Microsoft will never call you. They have no interest in individuals who may or may not have viruses on their computers. It's not their problem.
• Wrong terminology. Computers get viruses, worms or Trojans. They do not get germs - as I explained to the person who made the mistake of waking me up at 0800 this morning to try and scam me. Bad mistake - I was tired..
• Ask what ISP you are with. As above they cannot have obtained your telephone number anywhere other than your ISP in this instance. They won't know who it is.. another clear indicator - as if you needed one - that it's a scam.
• Ask how they obtained your number. They can only have obtained it from your ISP (which we've just shown they don't know).

In a nutshell, if someone telephones you and says your computer has a virus, and they are not from your ISP they are lying. Fact.

Another Fact. Your ISP will not ring you about this kind of issue. They have far more to do than telephone individual customers about possible viruses. If you consider an ISP with a million customers, and only 10% had viruses that's still 100,000 people they'd have to call. That is a pointless waste of time and resources. ISPs don't do it for that very reason. You may conceivably get an email from them if there is a really serious problem, but if you do I would urge you to telephone them on a number you know, not one from the email, to confirm it's not another type of scam.

I have only ever been contacted regarding a perceived problem with my Internet connection by my ISP once in the 17 years I have been online, and that was by email. Never by phone.

One Simple Rule. There is no direct path between your computer's Internet connection and your telephone number, therefore anyone - other than your ISP who won't - who telephones you about problems with your computer is a liar.

X-Factor - Mending the Faults

I have been watching X-Factor for several years and over that time I have become disillusioned with the format for several reasons. It appears that this series has seen a slump in ratings, and I suspect it may be due in part to the faults I perceive in the format;

• There should never be an even number of judges with equal power to vote.
• Judges should never be mentors as well.

There is basic common sense behind both the above comments.

1. The even number of judges. In Strictly Come Dancing for example, the head judge Len Goodman has the final say. Therefore if there is a tie at the end of a dance-off with two judges each voting for the couples, the one that Len votes for survives for another week.

Unfortunately this would not work in X-Factor in the circumstance where the head judge was also a mentor of one of the acts up for elimination as they would always vote for their own act.

This brings me to the other, and I believe fundamental, flaw in the format.

2.  Judges as Mentors. This can never work for several reasons:

The judges will always bias their feedback in favour of their own acts, meaning their own acts think they are better than they actually are, while their competitor mentors' acts will be given the impression they are worse.

Secondly there are major issues with the vote-off. Two acts face each other, one to be voted off. The flaw in this is that no judge will vote for their own act to be voted off, thereby rendering the opinions of half the panel of four pointless. The only exception is the rare occasion when one judge has two acts in the vote off. Therefore as a general rule only two of the judges' opinions will be genuine, and if they don't agree - as often happens - the result is that the one with a lower viewer vote, often not the worst singer, ends up leaving.

There has been talk of Simon Cowell returning to the show, and this could be incorporated into one of my suggested solutions for the programme to address the above flaws.

a) Bring in different people to mentor allowing the judges to give their unbiased opinions. There could then be a head judge appointed so that a deadlock never occurs. This is I admit the more expensive of the two options as there are four more wages to deal with, however it has the benefit that every judge's opinion would be unbiased.

b) If Simon Cowell is to return he could be added to the existing judging panel as a non-mentoring judge to give five in total. This would also fix all the flaws;
  i)  The contestants would always get one unbiased opinion of their performance.
  ii) The vote off would always have a definite result as there would always be a majority vote.
 iii) Each week there would be three judges giving an unbiased opinion of which act should leave.

I think if either of the above options were chosen this would add a new dimension to the X-Factor and result in fairer judging, and help revive ratings.

Politics v Religion

This blog, fairly short is my take on this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20581407

Curiously it is a point nobody mentioned.

The thrust of the argument seems to be whether politicians should be allowed to influence their decisions, and therefore policy making, based on their religious beliefs.

This in my opinion is yet another instance of public figures blurring the distinction between private and personal life. For example several politicians have been laid low by marital indiscretions, and while personally these events will affect them, the important question in my view is 'How will it, if at all, affect their ability to do their job?' Yes, there are cases such as Profumo where private and professional life cross; Sleeping with a woman who also shares her bed - separately - with a Soviet Intelligence officer when you are Secretary of State for War will always end in tears.

However back to the main point. I have no issue whatsoever with any politician who holds particular religious beliefs and practices them in their private life. I do take issue if they then incorporate them in their professional life and allow those beliefs to colour how they vote on issues which affect me.

Members of Parliament are elected by the people to represent us and our views, not their own. Party Politics is fundamentally flawed anyway as a democratic system; the Party Whip's job is to make sure MPs vote the way the leadership tell them, which may well not be the way their constituents want them to. If you then add an element of MPs voting according to their religious beliefs, not the wishes of their constituents or the evidence in front of them, then the system has broken down completely and may as well not be there.

I want my MP to make all their decisions based on the evidence available, taking into account my wishes as they are my representative in Parliament, not preconceived notions based on religious - or any other factor - beliefs. Naive? Maybe, but that is how it's supposed to work.

Jimmy Savile, the Media and Celebrity

I competed at Stoke Mandeville in the Junior BSAD [now defunct British Sports Association for the Disabled] Games between 1979 and 1986. One of my earliest memories is of one occasion a helicopter flying over, and a buzz of excitement at a rumour that Jimmy Savile was on board. This memory is now tarnished with the latest allegations - and with a justice system based on the precept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty we must remind ourselves that they are only allegations at this point. I also have to admit that the allegations regarding Stoke Mandeville, whilst saddening did not in fact surprise me, as I had said only two days previously, upon recalling the helicopter 'I wonder why he would have been visiting at a time when a lot of disabled children were gathered there..' It is unfortunate that my suspicion seems not to be without foundation if these allegations prove to be true.

However, I must at this point address another issue, that of Savile's honours. I have seen comment demanding his knighthood be revoked, and you may imagine that as a disabled person who was a child at the time of his alleged activities I would support such a stance. However, there are three arguments against such a move;

• No charges have been proven as yet.
• Savile has passed away so any such sanction would be meaningless and potentially viewed simply as vindictive and petty.
• The reason for his knighthood was for his charity work. He was not, for example a banker whose knighthood for services to the banking industry has subsequently proven to be misguided and revoked during his lifetime. Jimmy Savile - regardless of any accusations concerning his private life - did carry out the charity work for which he was honoured.

Therefore I feel it would be disproportionate, and to a degree pointless, to revoke his knighthood should the allegations be proven.

[Addendum: Since posting the above it has come to my notice that provision for revoking Honours can be that the person's conduct brings the Honours system into disrepute.  On that basis I see revocation would be perfectly justified, other than my second point above vis. there being no sanction against him as he has died.]

This is however, not the first case of sexual abuse potentially involving disabled children of which I have been personally aware. I started school at five years old and for reasons I still cannot explain 37 years later, took a dislike to one of the care staff, and gave him a wide berth. Yet again I have to admit to a lack of surprise when, in the early 1990s, I heard he had been arrested on suspicion of sexually abusing the children at the school I had attended, over several years. He subsequently served, if memory serves, seven years for his crimes.

I doubt there is anyone in the country who is unaware of the allegations made against Jimmy Savile, yet I am equally sure virtually nobody will have heard of the case I outlined above. Neither case in my view is of lesser severity, and certainly not to the victims, one of whom I recall making such a fuss when he had to go to school - he was a boarder - on Monday that he was collected on Tuesday by the school minibus. He was unable to speak so could not voice his fears. I now know why - he was to later be confirmed as one of the victims of the abuse.

There is a simple reason for this dichotomy, and that is the media. The media build up celebrities in the eyes of the public until they are deemed to be icons, heroes to be worshipped. I am a Star Trek fan and one character made the observation 'She did the worst thing a person can do to another.. fail to live up to their expectations.' This is what happens when celebrities do wrong; we expect them to obey a higher set of ideals than us mere mortals, thus when the likes of John Terry, Jimmy Savile et al fail to live up to our ideals for them, we react with outrage.

Therein lies the error. While the media build up celebrities to be something superhuman, and we believe them, they remain what they always were. Human. A soccer player is a normal man, famous for having some skill at kicking a football; an actor is a normal man or woman who can deliver lines and portray characters with skill; a reality TV star is famous for... errr.. for being famous as far as I can tell (?)

The point is that while we elevate celebrities to a level which, frankly they do not deserve, we open ourselves to a stream of almost constant disappointment when they fail to meet the high standards we set for them. It's not even necessarily their fault, they don't set the standards they are supposed to adhere to; nor for that matter do we. We ascribe a model and standard of behaviour to the people we are told they are. By the media.
We need to recognise that we are all human, and that nobody is special. When we do that, and we, or at least the media, give equal exposure to the good behaviour as well as the bad behaviour of everyone we will be getting somewhere.  The celebrities will no longer feel the pressure to live up to a higher ideal that they are unable to maintain, but equally everyone else will realise they must raise their own standards of behaviour, and thus all of us celebrities included will be able to look one another in the eye knowing we all obey the same moral code.

There is a sidebar to this. The Leveson Inquiry is currently due to report on its findings into press misconduct. Why do the press repeatedly feel the need to intrude into the private lives of celebrities? Because it sells. It's packaged as Public Interest. We as the general public need to lose our adulation of celebrities and accept that they are normal human beings whose work happens to be open to public scrutiny. Not every waking moment. Their work. Once we accept that individually they are the same as the rest of us we will lose our interest in every tiny detail of their lives.  They will attain a more peaceful existence as the media will stop hounding them, the media will be able to devote more resources to ferreting out more 'wrongdoing', and we will not have to worry that the media are probing into our lives, just on the off-chance that there is a quiet news day and something we have done is salacious enough to be newsworthy. I am not, by the way, suggesting that investigative journalism be muzzled, quite the opposite. What I would like to see is the resources currently being wasted on stories about 'who is in bed with who' be redirected to more important stories such as corruption and misdemeanours of a more viable Public Interest.

History v Entertainment

Now don't get me wrong;

a) My current favourite reading genre is historical fiction.
b) This is not yet another Hollywood bashing exercise (although they do necessarily play their part).

This is more about how the entertainment industry as a whole plays fast and loose with historical accuracy, to the point that sometimes it is not just inaccurate, it is plain wrong and misleading. In historical fiction however you are at least guided by - sometimes lengthy - author's notes where they specify where they have taken license with the facts. Movies and games do not do this.

Case 1.  Hollywood.  U571.

A US submarine discovers the code books to break the German Enigma Code wide open. The US (again!) wins World War II single-handed. Except it never happened. A British warship in fact shot up a U-boat causing it to be unable to dive, and two of the British crew who boarded it found the code books onboard. This is known fact, as two of them perished when the U-Boat captain scuttled it and they were unable to get out in time. They could have but they chose to continue passing up the books to their shipmates outside until it was too late.

Case 2. Computer Gaming Industry. Assassins Creed.

For those not familiar with the game it is set in Italy in either the 14th or 15th century. You may be wondering why I'm not sure which century, and I shall explain. The general synopsis is that a band of assassins, obviously the Creed of the title, is waging a guerilla war against the evil Pope, Rodrigo Borgia. All fine so far. Except the army of supporters aiding the Pope are the Templar Knights. Here we run into a tiny problem.

i) The Templar Knights were exterminated as an organisation on the orders of Phillipe of France in 1312.
ii) Pope Alexander VI's papacy began in 1492.

Now I was never the best at mathematics in school, but I'm sure an organisation the Pope disbanded in 1312 couldn't be acting under his orders and thriving 180 years later.

[Edit: April 2017: I have been informed by a reliable source that the creators of Assassin's Creed openly state the history is not accurate, so inasmuch as they don't try to say it is they're forgiven. However the fact remains that game players in general are not the type to pay attention to that kind of disclaimer, so the point is still valid.]

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

Now, the entertainment industry does get it right sometimes - Bram Stoker's Dracula was pretty faithful to the original; in James Cameron's blockbuster Titanic the ship did actually sink, apparently much to the dismay of some movie-goers but let's not go there shall we? On the other hand that is perhaps precisely where we should be going as it is the purpose of this blog.

The entertainment industry could, if they chose to, be a force for good and for education. For example the Lord of the Rings trilogy was broadly accurate and faithful to Tolkien's original and hopefully encouraged some who had not read the originals to give them a try (yes there were faults but that's a whole new blog - or blogs). When entitling a movie or a game with the format '[Author's Name]'s [Book Title]' it is helpful - I would argue essential - if the content of the movie/game bearing the title at least make some attempt to be faithful to the original. Similarly when depicting historical events there needs to be at least a solid core of accuracy;

i) Rasputin's death was one of the events leading to the Russian revolution in 1917, so how could he be depicted chasing the Princess Anastasia all over Europe after the Revolution? Notwithstanding the fact he was a friend of the Russian Royal Family as well.  (Yes I know it's Disney but if you feed children rubbish at an early age it's harder to feed them good stuff later on.)

ii) H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds has been particularly, and repeatedly badly maligned in this respect. With the original story being based in late Victorian England - a time when it was believed that Mars held life - it is puzzling to find the story depicted as 1950s or early 21st century America - the latter with none of the original characters surviving.

Similarly if you set a movie/game within a certain time period there ought to be at least some attention paid to accuracy of the period.

I am aware that I may be coming over as a history/literature purist and while I make no bones about the fact that I do much prefer accuracy in both, that is not the main gripe I have. My gripe is simply this. On one occasion I was conversing with someone from America regarding World War II and he told me, with some confidence, that Germany attacked Pearl Harbor. Now I know many Americans and because of that I know this level of ignorance of history is not universal, nor for that matter is it confined to America. However unless the entertainment industry in its' entirety put more effort into accuracy in their output, I fear the knowledge of history of many people will be lost among the fiction fed to them on a daily basis.

I leave you with this - often misquoted - observation;

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'

George Santayana (1863-1952)

;and a question:  Do you know where the Manic Street Preachers' lyrics 'If you tolerate this, then your children will be next' originated? No prize just an interesting snippet.

How to make a Cabinet, and other issues..

No I haven't gone mad - well OK not any more than I was originally anyway - and this has nothing to do with DIY. It's more to do with our system of politics in the UK.

As all readers from the UK will be aware we recently had a reorganisation of the Prime Minister's closest advisors, collectively known as the Cabinet - chief advisors are the Cabinet Office Ministers, aka Secretaries of State, for Education/Health/Home Office/Foreign Office etc. What may not be known to readers outside the UK is that none of these post holders need have any expertise in their given post whatsoever. While it is (we fondly hope) advisable to have a Chancellor of the Exchequer - responsible for economic and budgetary policy - who has economic experience and qualifications, it is not a requirement for example that the Minister for the Armed Forces have served in any of them, or for the Health Minister to be medically qualified - for example an ex-Chairman of the British Medical Council.

Returning to the recent reshuffle - as the reorganising of the Cabinet is known, it is commonplace for a Prime Minister to periodically reappoint people to different posts - most often midway through a term of office, but often too if an administration is in difficulty. In past times reshuffles during such times have been referred to as 'rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic' and this has occasionally proven to be the case. In the UK therefore we can find ourselves in a position whereby the Prime Minister's chief advisor on (for example) Education may previously have served as advisor on Health, the Armed Forces or Transport etc. Nobody can be an expert on such diverse topics. Contrast this with the USA where the President's advisors are, for example, retired generals, or ex-CIA Directors - in other words people with a proven track record in the area in which they advise. [Edit: At least they were - not so much now.]

This is not the only problem however with the Mother of all Parliaments. Government, broadly speaking contains three main branches; Executive;  Legislative; Judiciary. While intended to be totally separate thus avoiding any conflict of interest or undue power vested in a single person, this is not the case. The Executive in the UK consists of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The Legislative consists of the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament, more commonly referred to as the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Very broadly speaking they perform the same function as the USA's Senate and House of Representatives. Lastly the Legislative branch, in the UK enshrined in the persons of the Law Lords, senior judges and legal experts.

However, all is not as it should be. Members of the Prime Minister's Cabinet - indeed Prime Ministers themselves - are elected members of Parliament, and are thus able to sit, and vote, on matters arising in the House of Commons. Thus the Executive branch is inextricably linked to the Legislative, and those proposing policy are able to directly influence debate on its' passing. Furthermore Lords are able to sit on the Cabinet - although I believe they must give up their seat in the House of Lords to do so (if any reader knows this for certain I would appreciate confirmation). The Law Lords have no such restriction however, and thus those responsible for enacting new legislation sit in the House of Lords able to affect debate on legislative proposals, and again the Legislative branch is inextricably linked to the Judiciary.

It's all a bit of a mess really, with no single branch of government able to act in isolation, or without influence, from the other two. The current administration has said they will bring in government reforms, however, as much as both these elements needs to be corrected I cannot see it happening any time soon.

Disability in Sport and at Work

The following was originally written as part of a project dealing with sport and disability.  With the recent Paralympics still fresh in everyone's minds it seems a good time to bring it to a wider audience.  Also the thought occurs that the arguments put forward for sport are equally true for employment too, bearing in mind the government's recent closure of many Remploy factories.

Generally speaking, human beings become disabled in three main ways;

• From birth, with a consistent, unchanging disability.
• From birth, with a degenerative condition.
• Through trauma later in life.

In any demographic it is important not to generalise, however there will always be those who - whether born with their disability or who have it thrust on them through trauma, have varying degrees of self-confidence and strength of character.  Participative sport - especially that of a team based nature - and employment, have an important part to play in the recovery both mentally and physically of the individuals concerned.

It is self evident that those who have been victims of a recent trauma, and to a lesser extent those whose degenerative condition has advanced to a debilitating level, are likely to feel disenfranchised from the rest of society, as unlike those born with a disability it is not their normal condition.  One who is born with a permanent condition has no recollection of, for example, being able to walk and thus is unable to miss it and treats the current status quo as normal, which for them personally it is.

Enter sport and employment into the equation.  It has become increasingly commonplace to involve a degree of sport in the rehabilitation of trauma victims to aid their physical recovery.  However, whether the participant has become recently disabled or has been for many years, the introduction of sport into their lives can have a marked effect beyond that of the merely physical.  Equally true is the (re) introduction of employment to their lives.

One study in particular highlights the importance of sport for the disabled in several areas, namely;

(a) performance accomplishments and functional efficiency

(b) perceived self-efficacy

(c) self-concept and self-esteem

(d) personality disorders, mood states and locus of control

(e) activity level and social acceptance.

All the above elements will be affected to a greater or lesser degree by the individual's participation in competitive sport, however it is likely that b, c and particularly e will benefit specifically from team based activities.  Again engagement in employment tasks will furnish many of the same benefits. 

These issues and benefits hold true for all three of the original categories; those born with a permanent disability; degenerative; or those victim of a trauma. 

Returning to the areas of importance though; firstly the person will, simply through their involvement in the activity gain increasingly in performance accomplishments, as through time they will become more and more proficient in the skills required to perform the tasks required.  Their increased activity will lend a natural increased functional efficiency to their daily lives; they may find for example an increase in their hand-eye coordination, dexterity or in their stamina.

This will lead naturally to a perceived self-efficacy as they become aware that they are neither constrained, nor defined, by their disability, and that in fact it has opened up possibilities to them which may otherwise never have been available.  That is not to say the individual will embrace their disability - that is perhaps too strong a term - but their acceptance of their circumstances - whether recently altered or lifelong - is likely to be eased by the realisation that their life is not devoid of purpose due to their disability, rather it is an opportunity or challenge to be grasped and used to best advantage.

It is self evident that anyone, disabled or otherwise, who takes up a new interest - competitive sport or otherwise - will increase their activity level, whether it is Family History and they have to spend time visiting the library etc, or in more active pursuits such as cycling for pleasure.  This increased activity in itself will lead to an overall increase in the individual's level of fitness and general health.  Similarly, disabled or otherwise if one becomes involved in any activity outside the home there is a natural consequence that they will come into contact with others engaged in similar activities, and thus their social circle will increase. 

This is particularly the case both in participative sport and employment, where the individual concerned, even in single competitor events or tasks, will both train alongside and compete against/work with, others involved in the same sport/activity.  This is multiplied of course by the size of the team involved, and will introduce an element of cooperation into the picture.

The greatest element in sport and employment though will be the social element.  As proficiency grows the individual will find a greater feeling of self-esteem with the realisation that there is a trust between them and the other team members, and a reliance on them to fulfil their tasks toward the common goal of winning at the event.  Able-bodied people who are not disabled socialise outside their sport and/or workplace, and the disabled are no different in this respect; they too will enjoy each others' company outside the environment in which they work or play as well as the comradeship on it.

An extension of this social element is the probability of crossing what may to some be perceived as a boundary between those who are disabled and those not.  Particularly in a team which may mix those with congenital conditions and trauma victims, the latter will no doubt have friends and relatives who are not disabled who may be involved in any social gatherings; birthday parties; christenings; weddings.  This will lead naturally to those who may not have mixed socially with those who are not disabled - since their disability has been an issue for them - and afford both sides to forge new links of understanding, once more imbuing the disabled person with a feeling of greater self-worth and belonging.

The feeling of belonging, and more importantly of acceptance by others for who they are, is a key element of why team activities - sporting or employment - in particular are a valuable tool or resource for those involved in the rehabilitation of trauma victims and for those involved perhaps in a less medical role such as those who may run day-care centres.  They will be able to pinpoint those who attend their facilities who appear less inclined to engage with other visitors or members and be able to give guidance towards such activities that will aid the individual in achieving greater social awareness and involvement.

In summary then, irrespective of the genesis of the individual's current circumstances, there are those who will either find the transition back to their previous involvement in society difficult, or conversely have never had that involvement will find the prospect daunting.  Sports and employment can in a very real sense act as a catalyst to the process of them (re)engaging in society and providing a true quality of life.